Now it is possible to search in all registered Youth Academies on hattrick youthclub for players by their name. You have to fill in the whole name to get a result. If a player is already promoted to senior squad you have to use the hattrick.org integrated search function.

We are very happy to announce a cooperation with HatCoach. If you are a user of http://www.hatcoach.org you can find a new link on your navigation. There you find an option to get an overview about your youth team, as it is entered in hattrick youthclub. To grant access to HatCoach to fetch these data from hattrick youthclub, you have to set a second security code. This is possible in your settings on hattrick youthclub. This code is needed for the download of your youth data to HatCoach. HatCoach does show the Player-skill-matrix.

We hope that other tools like to integrate this feature, too . We do provide more data than HatCoach shows currently. If you would like to see more, just ask for it .

If you like to see your youth data in other tools please ask the creator of the manager tool do implement it. We will grant access to everymanager tool, which has a CHPP license.

Today, Thanksgiving Day, we honor cooperation, peace, sharing, support, gratitude and giving.

But do we truly honor these ideals if we nurture them but one day a year? Do we truly honor these ideals if we don’t put them into practice on a daily basis?

Truth be told, our thanks are hollow if we do not choose love, sharing and cooperation every day in every decision we make in our lives.

To truly honor the ideals of Thanksgiving and to be consistent with the principles of love and peaceful coexistence, it would behoove us to do more than simply praise and celebrate the symbology one day a year.

Were we to do this, were each of us to choose to be grateful for what we’ve got and to share our blessings with others less fortunate on a daily basis, we would generate an abundance of joy and love in our lives that would help transform this sick, decaying world we’ve toxified and corrupted.

That being said, let’s make a resolution to give thanks not just today but everyday, and to find some way, everyday, to make the world brighter and better for one of our fellow travelers.

AB has been noticeably more cooperative and motivated lately.  Consequently, I don’t feel so frazzled in the mornings, at homework time, or bedtime.  Wow: that’s a lot less stress!

Sure, when he’s supposed to be getting ready to go to school, he still fights with his sister or can’t get his shoes and jacket on because of the toys in his hands… but it’s been weeks since he’s hidden or just lain passively on the floor as the school bell is ringing…

All of a sudden, he’s taking initiative for getting help with his homework or logging on to BrainSpark!  The other night, I asked him to stop reading to me because it was getting late, but he was really interested in the story.  Finally, I agreed that he could continue reading by himself… and he did… right to the end of the book.  I don’t remember him reading independently before, or at least not such a challenging book.

It’s hard to know how he’s gotten here, as so much has happened or changed in the past couple of months:

• he has a fabulous energetic, fun, young, guitar-playing, sport-loving, male homeroom teacher… and about a month ago, he made his teacher a promise that he would do his best;
• he receives accommodation at school (extra time, scribing, quiet place for tests)
• we *all* feel supported by his approachable and helpful special ed teacher, school, and school board;
• he has made friends in his new school & childcare;
• we added Vitamin B supplements to his daily diet (complex B liquid & B12 pills);
• we have been building AB’s awareness and understanding of his profile, ADD/LD and brain plasticity via discussions, books & videos;
• AB is enjoying BrainSpark.  He’s motivated by the reward system (points to buy characters and items for his virtual world).  The aftercare will allow him to access the program 3x/ week… so we decided to purchase the 4 month license.  We’ll report on how it goes!

The essence of Mahalo Creative Lounge and Café exists in the most basic necessity of life, which is consistent with every single human being on this planet and that is the desire to be loved and accepted. These emotional needs are first and foremost in every person’s life, from the moment of birth, whether they recognize it or not. Perhaps we are conditioned to strive to be successful, or rich, or competitive, or popular or whatever, but the reality of the drive for these things still boils down to that original, basic need. Every interaction with another human being is an exchange of energy to fulfill that which we seek. Mahalo is an opportunity to create an atmosphere that is unique, filled with creative, open-minded people that have a place where all people are welcome and accepted; all people are loved and treated like family. THIS is the very ESSENCE of Mahalo Creative Lounge and Cafe. This is what distinguishes us from the rest of the world. The driving forces behind Mahalo are feelings of love, acceptance, and cooperation, creating opportunity, freedom, hope and unity. I can almost guarantee that most business minded people fail to see these things when they are piecing together their business plans. We are an incredible group of entrepreneurs with a GRAND idea that stems from a place of gratitude and love of life itself. Rochester, New York needs a place like this. Every city in the world needs a place like this! We hope to touch the souls of each and every person with our mission.

The meaning of Mahalo is to be grateful

We at Mahalo Creative Lounge and café would like to express our Gratitude for all who take the time to read this blog.

Mahalo and feel free to leave comments

I really liked what Amy wrote in her reflection for homework yesterday:

“The most memorable moment for me was when we created the camp sites because it’s something different and this activity has turned me into a different person. While we were creating the campsite I felt surprised of how people treat each other. That’s a different feeling. I have never felt this surprised before.”

What do you think? Were you just as surprised as Amy was by the way that you all treated each other in the Camp Site Challenge? What kind of behaviour surprised you?

In my over twenty years of experience at the large, very successful aerospace company where I labor, I have spent a great deal of time trying desperately to get the IT people to talk to the Engineering people. I haven’t, for the most part, been all that successful. Back in the day IT was truly an empire unto itself and it was pretty blind when it came to listening to the needs of the Engineering community. Furthermore, many of the systems that were used by various programs were dictated by the customers who were paying for our services and our products, basically NASA, the U.S. Air Force, and DOE.

This resulted in some very interesting problems with respect to systems, tools, and their use and subsequent development. What used to happen was Engineering would get an itch for a certain type of functionality but, since it hadn’t been contemplated in the original contract and since it might be some time before it could be renegotiated in order to get some money for developing the code required, Engineering would take it upon themselves to develop what they needed. You can imagine what happened many times. Though not an Engineer myself, I believe all Engineering students study one or more computer languages . .  . I’m fairly certain most of them  do.  Well, they would just get on the problem themselves, either writing code or – even worse – creating a tool in Excel.

So now we find ourselves in the interesting position of having something like a couple hundred tools, many quite useful, many overlapping in functionality. Many of them are unwieldy and kind of out-of-date, yet we don’t quite know how to get rid of them. This does seem to be changing somewhat as the tools of Enterprise 2.0 are gaining traction, i.e. blogs, wikis, user-generated content in general. Regardless, there are still numerous choices for how to deal with each of these as well. What wiki should we use? What about Open Source? (Anathema, btw, in my company – at least for now).

So the beat goes on. We keep adding tools, if at a slightly slower rate than previously (I think), and we seldom shed any. I suspect, as more and more content gets generated through the use of social media, and the ability to organize and make sense of it improves, we will eventually move away from many of the tools we’ve kind of grown up with. Data, too, will probably migrate toward a common format that can be accessed easily by anyone who wishes to and has authority to do so. It would be nice to see everyone on the same page, rather than pockets of people talking about the same thing in slightly different, and frequently incompatible, formats and locations.

In my upcoming book Proving God I touch on the topic of a most perplexing problem facing physicists concerning how quantum indeterminacy (potentialities) take on irreversible measurable results. In other words, what is the mechanism whereby a quantum wave function, which consists of tendencies to exist, finally “chooses” where it really is and what it is really doing.

This is called the measurement problem in quantum physics. What is really being asked here is how do “propensities” settle into stable forms of matter with real velocities seeking equilibrium in real space and in real time?

Current thinking involves some kind of outside influence (even human consciousness), which causes the wave function to “collapse” into an actual measurable result.  If quantum potentials actually collapse then this implies that none of the wave-potentialities associated with a quantum cloud disappear, but they all somehow take part in the event.

Scientists know that energy coheres into matter and that matter coheres into stable units like atoms—which cohere into galaxies and solar systems. What modern science does not yet know is that quantum potentials cohere as well. Quantum potentials seek equilibrium (balance) among themselves according to both active and passive principles. These active and passive forces effect cooperation among propensities to produce dynamical magnitudes (the change and renewal of equilibrium).

A single quantum potential contains the active force relative to all the others. All other potentials within a quantum “cloud” represent the passive force (parameters and constraints) relative to each single potential. In other words, the quantum potentials cohere (collapse) because they enter into a cooperation whereby they all act to determine and influence a type of mass (“dressed mass”) that takes physical form and becomes kinetic. (No active force or potential is realized or given form without a passive or restraining principle that quantifies and qualifies the event—and no passive principle would have existed in the early universe unless potentials could provide this force.)

All existence is through subsistence. Every entity in the created universe exists continuously from that which gives it its existence. Quantum potentials could not bring anything into formal existence unless they were the means by which a measured result subsists.

Why would such a principle of coherence and order point to the work of a Designer-God? Theology tells us that God is Infinite Love. The essence of love is to unite. It is God’s Love that drives nature to self-organize through the change and renewal of equilibriums.

Happy holidays! (I didn’t want you all to just stuff your stomachs!)

http://www.provinggod.com

Barbara Marx Hubbard, long regarded, by some individuals, as one of the world’s leading futurists, has defined the term, Synocracy, as:

…Synergistic Democracy…an emergent form of self-governance….the next stage of democracy in which each person has the opportunity to express his or her creativity for the good of the self and the whole. It is a form of governance that facilitates all citizens in finding their unique potential and where best to express it within the whole. It leads toward a cocreative society in which all people are free and responsible to do and be their best. [Emphasis added].

Synergistic is the adjectival form of “synergy” (from Greek sunergia,  cooperation).  Synergistic (synergic), thus, means “acting together,” or “working together in a creative, innovative, and productive manner” (from Greek sunergētikos).

Timothy Wilkin, MD, writing in an 2004 article, stated that “Barbara Hubbard originally coined the term Synocracy to refer to a not yet defined future system of ‘rule by the people’ in a co-Operative society.”   Dr. Wilkin also reported that Barry Carter, the author of Infinite Wealth, claimed that he had independently created the term, Synocracy.  Carter, quoted by Wilkin, wrote on his own behalf:

Barbara Marx Hubbard created the term synocracy. Having never read her book, I independently created the synocracy concept by way of mass privatization. When people are owning partners in a mass privatization organization they must participate because owners operate on profit and loss. As mass privatization communities work together we move beyond representative democracy and even beyond consensus democracy to create synergy-ocracy and synthesis-ocracy or synocracy. Infinite Wealth shows mass synocracy to be the new system of social order for the Information Age to replace representative democracy. It even replaces the notion of government with the broader notion of social order. Just as learning is driven internally where education is driven externally representative government is external and where as self-organizing mass synocracy is internally driven [Emphasis added].

Dr. Wilken observes:

In today’s world…it is assumed without question that majority rule democracy is the best way to organize humanity. To even offer a criticism…is to invite an immediate and often emotional charged attack on oneself. We are quickly asked to choose between majority rule democracy or the dictatorships of communism/fascism. We are quickly reminded that if we don’t like it here in a majority ruled democracy, we are free to leave….

Majority rule democracy in its purest form was found in the Ancient Greek city-states and Early Roman Republic, these were direct democracies in which all citizens could speak and vote in assemblies. This was possible because of the small size of the city-states almost never more than 10,000 citizens. However, even these Ancient democracys [sic] did not presuppose equality of all individuals; the majority of the populace, notably slaves and women, had no political rights at all. So even here the majority really did not rule.

In modern representative democracies we find the majority rule mechanism used to select our representatives, to make decisions within committees and to make decisions within the legislative bodies, however careful analysis reveals we really have rule by the few….

In today’s “FREE” world all political decisions are made using majority rule democracy. The the group deciding may be small—a committee faced with solving some particular problem, or large—the entire voting electorate of a nation choosing a President. Regardless of the size of the group deciding, decision is made when one faction within the group achieves a simple majority. That faction wins the minority faction loses. Majority rule consensus requires only a simple majority to force the minority—the losing voters to accept the position of the majority—the winning voters. There is no need to gain the agreement of all of the members. There is no need to prevent the minority from losing [Emphasis added].

When one looks at the evolution of systems of governance, it becomes clear that, over the course of recorded history, humankind has moved from autocratic, adversarial forms of force and control  (dictatorship, rule by one, or oligarchy, rule by a few), to majority rule democracy (“rule by the most”), and finally to modern representational democracy, which we find has devolved back to “rule by the few.”

The Relationship Continuum

According to Wilkin, “all human choices and all human relationships can be described as falling on a continuum,” viz.,

Adversity – Neutrality – Synergy

 Wilkin defines an “adversary [or adversarial] relationship” to be:

…any relationship wherein the participants are less happy, less effective and less productive than they would be without the relationship. An adversary choice is any choice that reduces the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the participants in the relationship. The sum of the whole relationship in terms of happiness, effectiveness, productivity, profitability, satisfaction, etc. is less than the sum of the parts – less than the sum of the individual’s ability to be happy, effective, productive, profitable, satisfied, etc. outside this relationship.

He defines a “neutral relationship” to be:

…any relationship wherein the participants are equally happy, equally effective, and equally productive as they would be without the relationship. A neutral choice is any choice that has no effect on the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the participants in the relationship. The sum of the whole relationship in terms of happiness, effectiveness, productivity, profitability, satisfaction, etc. is equal to the sum of parts – equal to the individuals’s  (sic) ability to be happy, effective, productive, profitable, satisfied, etc. outside this relationship.

And, finally, Wilken defines a “synergic relationship” to be:

…any relationship wherein the participants are more happy, more effective, and more productive than they would be without the relationship. A synergic choice is any choice that increases the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the participants in the relationship.  The sum of the whole relationship in terms of happiness, effectiveness, productivity, profitability, satisfaction, etc. is more than the sum of the parts – more than the sum of the individual’s ability to be happy, effective, productive, profitable, satisfied, etc. outside this relationship. 

Compared to the rule by the one of dictatorship,  the rule by the most  of majority rule democracy, appears to be a much fairer way. And fairness is perhaps the greatest value of our American nation.  However, it should now be clear to the reader that while Neutral political-economic systems are better for humanity than Adversary political-economic systems. Majority rule democracy is really an Adversary political-economic system pretending to be a Neutral political-economic system. In reality only lip service is given to rule by the most.

The Evolution of Democracy

Dr. Wilkin in his essay Beyond Democracy, has concluded:

What we really have in America, the “freest nation on Earth”, is rule by the few. And, while rule by the few holds some advantage over rule by the one, its advantage does not imply there is nothing better for Humanity.

If we are to find a synergic form of organization for humanity, we will have to look beyond the representive (sic) democracies of today.

Barbara Marx Hubbard has provided the conceptual underpinning for imagining the outcome of Wilkin’s “look beyond.”

The context for the evolution of democracy is the New Story of Creation, cosmogenesis, the discovery that the universe is an interconnected whole system that has been unfolding and transforming for billions of years. This unfolding is always toward higher consciousness and greater freedom through more complex order, and it continues now through us. From atom to molecule to cell to animal to human, and now to a Self-actualized humanity, we are becoming a complex planetary system, always through greater cooperation, connectivity, and synergy [Emphasis added].

This is a multi-billion year trend!  Synergy, the coming together of separate parts to form a whole system greater than the sum of its parts is not idealistic; it is a fundamental tendency in nature.

She quotes from the writing of evolutionary biologist, Elisabet Sahtouris:

Type I ecosystems are populated by aggressive species establishing their niches through intense, sometimes hostile, competition for resources and rapid population growth, while the species in Type III ecosystems tend toward complex cooperative or collaborative systems in which species feed or otherwise support each other to mutual benefit. The Type IIs generally lump together various “transitional” ecosystems. It seems reasonable to ask where the “more advanced” species that can build stable final communities “come from.” How did they evolve? Logically, there must have been a time when only pioneer species existed, yet somehow evolution led to the existence of mature, cooperative species” (Vision in Action, vol. 3, Number 1, 2005) [Emphasis added].

Hubbard concludes:

The human species as a whole has barely reached Type II.  We are in transition as a species toward greater cooperation. The growing threat of self-destruction through domination, control, and self-centeredness is a mighty evolutionary driver that is awakening millions of people within our immature species to move toward more cooperative action. Therefore, one of our fundamental efforts must be to develop processes to cultivate social synergy wherever we can [Emphasis added].

Thus, we can say that the term, synocracy represents the form of governance toward which “cosmogenesis” is slowly (at least from the human view) but relentlessly progressing.

Some men get terribly insecure about women’s “toys,” responding with such nonsense as “How am I supposed to compete with THAT?” You’re not, and you should be glad that it’s a toy and not another man. Why not “grow a pair” and join in the fun?

Sometimes I get letters from readers that are truly upsetting. I’ll spare you the details of those emotions, but eventually I have to look past the gross insecurity and ignorance expressed in the letter and remember that my job is to help people learn to be smarter and better, and that they think the way they do (or FAIL to think at all) because that’s what they have been taught, and my beef is with the teacher, not the student. Meet Brent:

Hey David,

Man, I’ve got a problem. My wife has discovered “toys,” (the adult kind) and I can’t get her to leave them alone. Every time I come home when she’s been here alone, they are laying out and it drives me nuts. I mean, how am I supposed to compete with that? I’ve got to get her to stop, but I don’t know how. I’ve tried everything I can think of, and she just gets madder and madder at me when I try to tell her that she doesn’t need them. What can I do?

Thanks,
Brent

My response:

Yes, Brent, you have a problem, and it’s not your wife’s toys. It’s your attitude. What makes you think you are “competing” with her toys? And what makes you think that she needs to stop using them? If there’s something lacking in the bedroom, would you not prefer that it was her toys taking up the slack instead of another man, or had that occurred to you?

I obviously don’t know your wife, but every woman that knows me, including your fellow readers, will tell you that I know women well enough to say this: Whether she’s using toys because there is something lacking in your performance or because she just likes toys is irrelevant, and you’re showing a sickening level of insecurity by feeling you have to compete with them and an equally sickening level of arrogance or stupidity to think that you can decide for her what she needs and doesn’t need. So what’s up?

She’s leaving them out as an invitation for you to join her in using them! She’s mad because you’re being insecure and trying to shut her down instead of listening to her, taking the hint, and letting her share with you something that she enjoys! Get a clue!

Like it or not, that’s reality, and if you think you’re choking on that dose, this one isn’t going to go down very well, either: If you don’t get a grip, grow a pair of testicles worthy of a man, and stop acting threatened by some masses of inanimate plastic, there will be another man involved, either before or after the divorce, and he will likely be chosen partially on the basis of his willingness to share her toy pleasures with her.

It’s like this: your manhood is not a function of how big your “organ” is or how many orgasms you can give her through “traditional” intercourse, or any other kind for that matter. That’s machismo, ego, and chauvinism at its worst. Your manhood is a function of how well you handle the job of being a man! How much you act like the alpha male – smart, confident, witty, able to treat adversity as opportunity and adventure, comfortable being in the lead and making decisions (NOT forcing them on others, as you want to do with her toys), and letting that naughty inner child out from time to time to show her a good time.

How do you think you come off asking her how you’re supposed to compete with a few ounces of plastic or latex?

Like a freaking wuss!

The only way that toy can be used as a lethal weapon is to choke you with it, yet you’re acting scared to death of it. How manly is that? NOT!!!

Now straighten up, think like a man instead of an insecure, grab-asstic adolescent, and next time you come home and find your wife’s toys laying out, put on your best naughty boy grin and tell her that if she’s going to leave her toys lying around where you have to look at them, she’s going to have to let you play with them too, so it’s time to get naked and show you how they work, else she’s going to get a spanking. Yes, I’m serious!

She will be stunned at first because you’ve acted like such a wuss, and then she’ll get a little cocky to test you to see if you mean it. Pick up one of her toys and give her a good-natured swat on the behind with it, and crack wise with something like, “That seems to work, but I’m sure there’s a better use for this than that,” and dial up the naughty level a few notches.

Let her show you, and you pay very close attention to things like speed, pressure, direction, etc., then you take over and allow her to continue to coach you, which she may do with her hands or other body parts instead of spoken words, i.e., raising her hips to press toward you means more pressure, etc. – use your head and keep your cool, and everything will be fine. It’s a learning experience, a damned pleasurable one too, not a contest, so put that competition nonsense away and leave it there before it gets you hurt. This is about cooperation, not competition.

All joking and rib-poking aside, if you have a problem with this because of some kind of childhood sexual trauma, stop hiding from it and get help, because you’re cheating both of you out of a lot of things, including fun, trust, intimacy, etc. – things that no committed relationship can ever get too much of, right?

Take care, and keep in touch,
David

This mess could have been avoided if Brent just knew a little more about communicating with women and was comfortable with himself, two things that a whole lot of men have a huge problem with. If you are one of them, it’s time to give yourself – AND YOUR PARTNER – the gift of a break from all the stress.

Inside every man is an alpha male, and if he’s not in the lead in your life, he’s been suppressed, oppressed, or somehow pressured into the background, but he’s there, waiting to come out. Yes, he is! He’s been there ever since you were given that “Y” chromosome at conception! But…

Unfortunately, there’s not likely to be a hyper-skilled communicator that can rival any woman hiding in there with him unless you are an effeminate gay male that is so girly that every woman wants to go shopping with you, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t learn how to do much better than you are doing – so much better in fact, that she thinks you’re reading her mind at times.

Neither are hard to do, if you just apply a little time and effort to clearing out some bad programming and engaging in a little self-improvement, which is a whole lot easier than trying to put on an act for a creature that has about 100 times the capacity for sensing and interpreting non-verbal communication than you have. You can’t just ACT like a man, you have to BE a man; otherwise the stress of trying to act in contradiction to yourself will backfire on you. But the good news is that you just need to know what works and how to make the parts of what work that appeal to you a real part of your life, which is one of the most enjoyable processes a man can go through at any point in his life. Being a man is a LOT easier than trying to act like one, and a lot easier than not being one, too!

It’s all laid out for you, step by step, in “THE Man’s Guide to Great Relationships and Marriage,” and it’s waiting for you at http://www.makingherhappy.com. Download it and give it a shot, because life is too short to miss out on the good parts, and unless you and your partner are truly enjoying your manhood (literally and figuratively) you are missing out on a LOT of good parts.

In the meantime, live well, be well, and have a wonderful day!
David Cunningham

Labels: Communication, Cooperation, Handling Conflict, How to Please a Woman, Male Attitude, Naughty Play, sexual advice, What Women Want

To fletch is to affix fins of feathers to the shaft of an arrow:
A Fletcher provides aerodynamic stability.

Our home is open to hosting all of the community; a boost
toward immunity from inhmane treatment; a model of
democracy, communication, and innovation; a sustainable,
local statement – best expressed while living daily life.

And here’s a really interesting interview in Morocco’s Le Journal Hebdo (French) with Martin Indyk, where he describes his dealings with King Hassan II during the Clinton administration. Not to be missed.

A blood-sucking leech colluded with DNA-profiling Australian police to bring an armed robber to justice, National Geographic News and Associated Press report.

In 2001, two men burgled the home of a Tasmanian woman and stole “several hundred” Australian dollars. Perspicacious Aussie plod discovered an engorged leech at the scene, and promptly bagged it.

Peter Cannon was arrested some seven years later on an unrelated dope charge, and had his DNA profile taken as a routine part of the Tasmanian police’s investigation.

Astoundingly, the police were able to match his DNA sample to the stomach contents of the crime-fighting invertebrate. Cannon faces up to 21 years in jail if a conviction is secured.

His accomplice, who presumably avoided the advances of the haemophagic gumshoe, remains at large.

I (Ken Chapman) received email received from James Van Leeuwen from Pincher Creek.  He gave me permission to post part of it in this blog.

James is a consultant, investor and entrepreneur focused on the development, deployment and application of information and communication technology for progressive economic, community and cultural development.  And he is registered for Reboot Alberta.  He shares some of his thinking:

The 2 Cents from James Van Leeuwen

I see the ’structural’ challenge facing Alberta as decentralization in almost every respect. We don’t need better leadership so much as we need a heck of a lot more leadership, and much better navigational tools to enable better leadership.

Power, people, capital and control have become too concentrated, perhaps the result of too many Albertans failing to take responsibility for their own learning, their own futures, the futures of their communities, and the future of their society. Complacency *rules*. Not to pick on Alberta… the whole country seems off the rails in this respect. 

Reggie Crowshoe of the Old Man River Cultural Centre once explained to me the fundamental difference between ’western’ societies and aboriginal societies (as they used to be). Aboriginal societies survived here for thousands of years because their central organizing principle was social responsibility, including responsibility to past and future generations. There was no practical alternative when it came to sustainability, but we’re still figuring this out.

In my mind, the key question is how to inspire, incentivize and generally invigorate social responsibility (personal, corporate, etc.) in a society that does little to acknowledge or reward it.

By itself, I believe environmental responsibility is largely a fruitless theme. I think it is best engaged in relation to the theme of intergenerational responsibility, really a form of social responsibility. People tend to empathize with other people, not trees, oceans and air. So let’s work with that.

My business interests are focused squarely on building the ICT infrastructure that will enable full and competitive participation and prosperity in the societies and economies of the 21st century. 

Fibre-to-the-everywhere with wireless connectivity in between. Data centres co-located with sources of green power generation – the streamside mills of the Information Economy. Advanced visualization systems that revolutionize our ability to tell stories, share and build on ideas, comprehend complexity, interdependence and interconnectedness, and basically map our way into the future.

There’s good business in all of this, and it’s also pretty cool stuff. I believe this same infrastructure and its countless applications will be powerful catalysts for the changes I think we need. 

There is much to look forward to.

My 2 cents.

Launched with the support of the Erasmus Mundus programme of the European Commission, this event will bring 33 Rectors and Vice-Rectors from 13 European and 11 African countries, well as various faculty members active in development cooperation, together to explore how higher education institutions in both regions are coping with the changing demands of their specific socio-economic environments.  The workshop is part of the Erasmus Mundus project “Access to Success: Fostering Trust and Exchange between Europe and Africa 2008-2010”, which aims to contribute to a wider discussion on effective inter-institutional cooperation between Europe and Africa, in particular with regard to student and staff mobility schemes, capacity building partnerships and government/donor support. The project brings together representatives of universities (senior leadership, staff and students from African and European universities), as well representatives of governments and donor agencies. The Access to Success project consists of two phases: a fact-finding phase in which surveys of higher education institutions were carried out in both Africa and Europe (Nov. 2008 – Oct. 2009) as well student surveys and focus groups. The dissemination and dialogue phase of the project, which is being launched with this workshop, examines the study results, facilitates opportunities for dialogue on cooperation, and promotes the strengthening of the bi-regional Europe-Africa cooperation in higher education. Three workshops and a final conference targeted at policy makers and donor agencies will be organized in this second phase (Nov. 2009 – Oct. 2010). The workshop in Addis Ababa will be a dialogue-focused event with a total of approximately 75 participants from 28 different countries. Participants will be from the leadership of institutions in Africa and Europe as well as some faculty members involved either in access and retention issues or generally in university cooperation between Europe and Africa.  The Access to Success project is being undertaken by EUA, together with the Flemish Interuniversity Council, which has facilitated this first workshop. The other project partners are: The Association of African Universities, the European Students’ Union, the Association of Norwegian Higher Education Institutions and the European Access Network.

Michael Giberson

Ed Yong, at Not exactly rocket science, describes recent research into, uh, I guess you could describe it as the socioeconomic life of bacteria:

Bacteria may not strike you as expert co-operators but at high concentrations, they pull together to build microscopic ‘cities’ called biofilms, where millions of individuals live among a slimy framework that they themselves secrete. These communities provide protection from antibiotics, among other benefits, and they require cooperation to build.

… One individual can’t build a biofilm on its own so it pays for a colony to be able to measure its own size. To do this, they use a method ‘quorum sensing’, where individuals send out signalling molecules in the presence of their own kind.

When another bacterium receives this signal, it sends out some of its own, so that once a population reaches a certain density, it sets off a chain reaction of communication that floods the area with chemical messages.

These messages provide orders that tell the bacteria to secrete a wide range of proteins and chemicals. Some are necessary for building biofilms, others allow them to infect hosts, others make their movements easier and yet others break down potential sources of food. They tell bacteria to start behaving cooperatively and also when it’s worth doing so.

Yong mentions research which inserted “signal-negative” and “signal-blind” variants of a bacteria – mutants that can’t pass along signals or that can’t sense them at all – into a population of normal bacteria.  It turns out that all that signaling behavior needed for social coordination is costly; abstaining from social activities allows the mutant bacterium to devote more time and energy to the more self-interested pursuits of eating and reproducing.  The research found that, as summed up by Yong, “cheaters can indeed prosper and then some – they outgrew their cooperating cousins by 60 to 80 times.”

Another researcher working with the same species of bacteria found that non-cooperators occur naturally.

But if cheaters prosper, why does anyone not cheat?  Yong said, “Both studies found that as the proportion of cheaters increased, their growth rate dropped because the value of cheating diminished.”

The second study also discovered that when faced with a population crash, cheaters developed further mutations that restored cooperative abilities.

But, to me, this last finding draws into question the characterization of non-signaling bacteria as non-cooperators and cheaters.  Perhaps the non-signalers emerge naturally in a population to regulate investment in the social infrastructure.  Perhaps “they also serve who only sit and wait (and eat and reproduce).”  This reserve army of slacker bacteria is getting ready for the hard times ahead, and when hard times come they have the energy stored up to leap into action, developing mutations necessary to restore cooperative abilities.

[HT to Economics and Mechanisms, which titles its post "Bacteria that channel Elinor Ostrom," and CogiDDo ergo sum.]

Some friends and I have started a Tuesday get together called Pie Night.

We take turns bringing a different pie every week.

It’s a kind of a Bellhemian Salon, where nobody speaks French or gets intoxicated — it’s a night of creativity, philosophical exploration and personal sharing.

We get a room full of musicians, artists, writers, and friends together in a circle around homemade pie and a semi structured philosophical discussion, in the spirit of pie and the metaphor of Pi .

We have a great time for new millennium modernists who are not absinthe minded professors.

Yeah, mostly we just talk a lot and eat pie.

Sometimes we just sing and be silly.

Hey, what else are we gonna do in the rainy winter of the Northwest?

Pie makes everything feel like sunshine.

THANK YOU FOR PIE

Click the Pie below to see why I like  Pie…

Over at Between the Times, Drs. Danny Akin and Bruce Ashford have continued their excellent series on “Seven Crucial Aspects of Our Mission” (which is broken down in true Puritan style of multiple sub-points and cases) with an article focusing on cooperation between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.  As you know, this issue has been with us for a very long time, and during the more heated moments in recent SBC life, I was documenting all the events, articles, and commentary that was taking place.

Having been involved in Southern Baptist discourse for the past 6-7 years (I know, I’m young), I would argue that the relations between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is the best that it has been.  The rhetoric and caricatures are rare, and the conversation between those with soteriological differences has increased, especially with the advent of Twitter.  I know it’s crazy, but Twitter as a social-networking platform has interconnected Southern Baptists in a form of internet community that would otherwise not exist in real life.  I’m not sure as to why or how this has happened, but perhaps “following” each other has allowed us to see that those with whom we disagree are not as bad as we think they are.  They love Jesus, desire to honor Him in faithfully preaching His Word, and are genuinely seeking to make a difference for the glory of God.  Having the opportunity to see glimpses into the lives of people who otherwise would be a faceless name or distant interlocutor makes you think twice before lobbing bombs at one another.  We are not enemies.  We are brothers in the trenches seeking to advance the kingdom against our common enemy, the devil.

Over the years that I have been blogging, I believe it can be said that I have matured, those with whom I have disagreed have matured, and hopefully my fellow Calvinist friends have matured as well.  That maturity does not mean a compromise in our convictions but rather a more gracious disposition to hope all things in love rather than criticize all things in spite.  The appeal that Akin and Ashford make for Southern Baptists to cooperate is one that I urge all my Calvinist friends to heed.  At one point when I was a convinced non-Calvinist, I had a determined Calvinist friend who sat me down at a state convention and said, “Unless you become a five-point Calvinist, you will never be effectively used in ministry.”  I won’t ever forget that, and God by His grace drew me to an understanding of the doctrines of grace in spite of, not because of, such comments.  To my Reformed friends, don’t be that guy.

On the other hand, if I may, let me speak to Ashford, Akin, and my other “non-Calvinist” friends about cooperation with Calvinists.  In numerous ways and at various times, the call has been made for Calvinists to “put their theological cards on the table” and be up front with churches with what they believe.  (While all Calvinists should be transparent and clear with what they believe, this assumes that those with whom they are talking about understand exactly what Calvinism is.  But that is besides the point.)  I want to encourage my non-Calvinist friends to do the same.  You are defining yourself in the context of cooperation with a nondescript label.  You are what you are not.  Okay. That could mean anything.  Arminian? Amyraldian? Semi-Pelagian? Biblicist? “Cal-minian”? Who knows?

If there is to be genuine cooperation, let’s put the expectations and responsibilities on both sides.  You call for Calvinists to cooperate with non-Calvinists, but that could very well mean to cooperate with anyone in the Southern Baptist who is not a Calvinist without soteriological or confessional warrant.  You might argue the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 as the confessional parameters, but how many churches and pastors of the 50,000 that exist in the SBC could articulate even a superficial understanding of what it says?  Even worse, should there be given an opportunity to query about what is the gospel and how one becomes a Christian, is there an assumption that non-Calvinists would have a consensus to say the same thing?  I have reason to think not.  Therefore, the premise that Calvinists should prima facie cooperate with non-Calvinists is fraught with difficulty, much of which could be eliminated if the same standard and expectations would be applied to non-Calvinists in the manner it has been for Calvinists.

Akin and Ashford argue,

It is our opinion that the areas of disagreement between Southern Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists are usually not even secondary, but tertiary. Calvinists should be able to recognize that non-Calvinists are preaching “the gospel” even if they disagree on the particulars.

Questions regrading the extent of the atonement, predestination, and the like I agree are tertiary, but there are some doctrines intricately related to the gospel that, should they be given up, would alter the gospel altogether.  Primary doctrines that address the questions of  “What is the gospel?” and “How does one become a Christian?” are essential and fundamental, “particulars” where disagreement we should all be able to recognize as unfortunately jeopardizing cooperation.

For instance, if Charles Finney were alive today and working as an itinerant revivalist in the Southern Baptist world, I (and I would imagine most Calvinists) could not cooperate with him.  His understanding of the gospel, conversion, work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, and the nature and state of man would all be particulars that are not secondary or tertiary but primary.  You might respond, “Well, of course.  Finney was semi-Pelagian.  That would be an extreme example.”  Okay. Now let me put it into contemporary vernacular because I believe that spirit and methodology (that flowed from his theology) is alive and prevalent today.  If the response to the gospel message is to “ask Jesus into your heart” or “pray this prayer after me” or “walk down this aisle” rather than repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus, then that is a primary difference in how one becomes a Christian.  If the gospel is truncated, watered down, or altered so as to not offend, then we have a real problem.

The younger generation of Southern Baptists in the Biblebelt is in a modern-day burned-over district which some have called “the boneyard of the South.”  How did this happen?  In these places where the churches are so many and the culture so lost, how did we get here?  Where there is no marked difference in the lives of Christians than non-Christians, the problem is not sanctification or a discipleship process.  It is justification.  It is the gospel.  If Southern Baptist churches are going to rise from the ashes, and if Southern Baptists are going to embrace a Great Commission Resurgence, then we must not assume the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists are merely on tertiary grounds.

The future of Southern Baptists in cooperation around the Great Commission will not only be determined by how far we go on mission but also how well we know our message.  When we are not saying the same thing and are not handling the souls of men in the same way, this is no small matter.  I’m not talking about the finer points that are debated in coffee shops.  I’m talking about the essence of the gospel and what it means to be a Christian that is demonstrated in our rescue shops to reach a lost world.

My heart’s desire is to see exactly what Ashford and Akin are calling for–genuine cooperation of Southern Baptists with Calvinists and “non-Calvinists” alike–who teach the gospel, preach the gospel, live out the gospel, and plant the gospel in the areas where Christ is not named.  There is much work to be done, not only in expanding the mission but also expounding on our message.  May God help us together to get it right.  May God help us together to shine as lights.  May God help us together to fight for the souls of men and the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.

US President Barack Obama spent several hours in closed-door talks with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao… From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: qingdao china. The blog is also related to: xian china.

Obama, Hu discuss global economy, climate change, nuclear non-proliferationi… From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: hongkong china. The blog is also related to: suzhou china.

Today’s suggestion for changing the world was to work together with people to achieve goals and to make the world a better place. The example given in the book ‘365 Ways to Change the World,’ by Michael Norton, was setting up a coop to get cheaper vegetables for the group from the market. There was also an example about a fellow who started to do this himself and who was able to set up cheap green grocer stores for the not so well off and homeless kitchens (a great story of helping the needy).

I won’t be following this one up, but I’m sure the coop idea is good for many people who want to do some good.

You could check out the web site below for more info in Australia:

www.australia.coop

A response to reading ‘365 Ways to Change the World,’ by Michael Norton