Issue Resolution Quotes

The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute. There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.

At the different stages of recognition, reflection, and redress, practicing compassion provides potentially world-saving opportunities which otherwise likely would not exist.

You must realize from your studies, Miss Feng, with the complexity of our MEG society, algorithms have become indispensable for analysis and decision making in our data-saturated environment. Digitization creates information beyond the processing capacity of Human intelligence, yet provides a stable mental environment powered by a set of logical rules. That is how we keep order in Toronto MEG.” “Excuse me, Mr. Zhang,” Ke Hui said, somewhat uncomfortably, “but the invisibility of algorithmic systems and the obscurity of their operations hint at a society where algorithms do not reflect the public interest. Issues involving ethics and values I mean, from my reading of MEG history, challenge the assumptions of the neutrality of algorithmic systems. Would this not undermine democratic governance through reliance on technocratic resolutions?

We know - intellectually - that confronting an issue is the only way to resolve it. But any resolution will disrupt the status quo. Given the choice between conflict and change on the one hand, and inertia on the other, the ostrich position can seem very attractive.

Skepticism is certainly a beneficial tool, to the extent that it yields a dialectic of ideas that can progress toward empirical resolution of difficult issues, but at present it is too commonly an attitude, a well-cultivated academic pretense, that leads to the neglect of important problems.

Jobs's intensity was also evident in his ability to focus. He would set priorities, aim his laser attention on them, and filter out distractions. If something engaged him- the user interface for the original Macintosh, the design of the iPod and iPhone, getting music companies into the iTunes Store-he was relentless. But if he did not want to deal with something - a legal annoyance, a business issue, his cancer diagnosis, a family tug- he would resolutely ignore it. That focus allowed him to say no. He got Apple back on track by cutting all except a few core products. He made devices simpler by eliminating buttons, software simpler by eliminating features, and interfaces simpler by eliminating options. He attributed his ability to focus and his love of simplicity to his Zen training. It honed his appreciation for intuition, showed him how to filter out anything that was distracting or unnecessary, and nurtured in him an aesthetic based on minimalism.

Nowadays, a simple faulty brake light traffic stop, can get a black person killed. It's better to fix the broken light bulb, then having to face and cooperate with a senseless police officer.

You are all soldiers of Christ," he said, "and now is an opportunity given to you to show that you are worthy soldiers. When the troops of a worldly monarch go into battle they do so with head erect, with proud and resolute bearing, with flashing eye, and with high courage, determined to bear aloft his banner and to crown it with victory, even though it cost them their lives. Such is the mien that soldiers of Christ should bear in the mortal strife now raging round us. Let them show the same fearlessness of death, the same high courage, the same unlimited confidence in their Leader. What matter if they die in His service? He has told them what their work should be. He has bidden them visit the sick and comfort the sorrowing. What if there be danger in the work? Did He shrink from the Cross which was to end His work of love, and is it for His followers to do so? 'Though you go down into the pit,' He has said, 'I am there also'; and with His companionship one must be craven indeed to tremble. This is a noble opportunity for holding high the banner of Christ. There is work to be done for all, and as the work is done, men should see by the calm courage, the cheerfulness, and the patience of those that do it, that they know that they are doing His work, and that they are content to leave the issue, whatever it be, in His hands.

Favourable Chance, I fancy, is the god of all men who follow their own devices instead of obeying a law they believe in. Let even a polished man of these days get into a position he is ashamed to avow, and his mind will be bent on all the possible issues that may deliver him from the calculable results of that position. Let him live outside his income, or shirk the resolute honest work that brings wages, and he will presently find himself dreaming of a possible benefactor, a possible simpleton who may be cajoled into using his interest, a possible state of mind in some possible person not yet forthcoming. Let him neglect the responsibilities of his office, and he will inevitably anchor himself on the chance that the thing left undone may turn out not to be of the supposed importance. Let him betray his friend's confidence, and he will adore that same cunning complexity called Chance, which gives him the hope that his friend will never know. Let him forsake a decent craft that he may pursue the gentilities of a profession to which nature never called him, and his religion will infallibly be the worship of blessed Chance, which he will believe in as the mighty creator of success. The evil principle deprecated in that religion is the orderly sequence by which the seed brings forth a crop after its kind.

Many times a huge problem gets solved with a trivial move.

Everyone has the right to do his own thing. This slogan is as crass as it is silly. If it were followed by everyone resolutely, society itself would be an impossibility. No one would have any true rights protected, because it at any given moment my rights could trample your rights

There is a major difference between couples who are dealing with non-attachment-related issues and those who are engaged in intimacy struggles. While the first couples want to find a common ground and reach a resolution that will bring them closer together, the latter either engage in ongoing, irreconcilable fights or one of the two is forced to compromise unilaterally in areas that are near and dear to him or her.

In 1898, while at war with Spain in the Pacific, the United States Congress decided Hawai'i would be a strategic asset and issued a joint resolution annexing the islands, which President McKinley signed into law. Hawai'i became only the second sovereign nation to join the United States. But unlike the Republic of Texas, where a public referendum was held, no one asked the thirty-one thousand native Hawaiians whether they wished to give up their country. Twenty-nine thousand of them signed a petition of protest, which was submitted to Congress and politely ignored.

Let us say that where the finite player plays to be powerful the infinite player plays with strength. A powerful person is one who brings the past to an outcome, settling all its unresolved issues. A strong person is one who carries the past into the future, showing that none of its issues is capable of resolution.

Loving ourselves makes the process of resolution and evolution easier, but it does not annul the process.

The success of the documentation efforts lies in the users being able to correctly locate and use the resolutions to their issues on time and retain that knowledge for later use.

Demands for healthy food choices were like New Year's resolutions. Top priority on Boxing Day, forgotten with time to spare for Valentine's chocolate.

This was the unexpected ... unforeseeable resolution of the paradox ... her personal goodness was no longer the issue because it had been replaced by the sweetness of relationship.

Only because they’re both willing to stay and deal with the issue do they find a resolution that they can both live with and in the process learn to be more in tune to each other’s needs.

Benefits Now—Costs Later We have seen that predictable problems arise when people must make decisions that test their capacity for self-control. Many choices in life, such as whether to wear a blue shirt or a white one, lack important self-control elements. Self-control issues are most likely to arise when choices and their consequences are separated in time. At one extreme are what might be called investment goods, such as exercise, flossing, and dieting. For these goods the costs are borne immediately, but the benefits are delayed. For investment goods, most people err on the side of doing too little. Although there are some exercise nuts and flossing freaks, it seems safe to say that not many people are resolving on New Year’s Eve to floss less next year and to stop using the exercise bike so much. At the other extreme are what might be called sinful goods: smoking, alcohol, and jumbo chocolate doughnuts are in this category. We get the pleasure now and suffer the consequences later. Again we can use the New Year’s resolution test: how many people vow to smoke more cigarettes, drink more martinis, or have more chocolate donuts in the morning next year? Both investment goods and sinful goods are prime candidates for nudges. Most (nonanorexic) people do not need any special encouragement to eat another brownie, but they could use some help exercising more.

We have been together for 40 years, married for 36. There have been three times in our relationship when we were unable to resolve an issue on our own. We used all the skill that we have and yet it was still unresolved. In those three times we sought professional help because there was a blind spot for each of us. The therapist was able to listen to both of us and help us come to a place of resolution that we both felt good about. I feel very grateful for that help. Most times we have been able to work things through on our own. Sometimes we can clear the issue in a matter of a few minutes, sometimes an hour and sometimes it can take several days. But we still keep working on it until we both say that we feel complete, we understand our own part and responsibility in the issue rather than simply blaming each other, are willing to go on, and there is an even deeper connection and sometimes even humor to the situation. In working each issue through to completion we have been able to retain a beautiful lightness in our relationship that we both cherish.

The physical board had a huge psychological effect compared to anything we got from the electronic tracking tool we used at Microsoft. By attending the standup each day, team members were exposed to a sort of time-lapse photography of the flow of work across the board. Blocked work items were marked with pink tickets, and the team became much more focused on issue resolution and maintaining flow. Productivity jumped dramatically.

Conflict becomes sinful when our responses to it are destructive, hurtful, abusive, or violent. There are good ways to disagree & there are also unhealthy ways. Even people who are right sometimes...about the issue... can deal with it in a way that is very unloving. Being faithful to Christ involves more than taking the right stance or being on the right side of an issue. It also requires engaging those with whom we disagree in positive respectful dialogue.

A bad fight is anything which does not help to move the relationship and the people involved forward. If one dominates the other, it will eventually be at the expense of the relationship. Everything depends on the intention. If the intention is to hurt, belittle, ignore, reject or win then good will struggle to come from that. If the intention is to wrestle with some boundaries and deal with unresolved issues then that is positive and important. Love for the other person and respect for their rights, as well as our own rights, will set a steady course for any argument. Of most value is a sincere desire to make the relationship work which, after all, is often why we fight. We want the relationship to honestly work.

You have just said that we should remember the clear lessons of history,' said Bob Johnson. 'What are these?' 'You remember what Bismarch once said? The great issues of the day will not be solved by majority resolution, but by iron and blood.

Maryland was a slave state with considerable support for the Confederacy at the onset of the war. But Maryland held for the Union and sent thousands of soldiers to defend Washington. What happened next provides a “positive” example of the effects of cognitive dissonance: for Maryland whites to fight a war against slave owners while allowing slavery within their own state created a tension that demanded resolution. In 1864 the increasingly persuasive abolitionists in Maryland brought the issue to a vote. The tally went narrowly against emancipation until the large number of absentee ballots were counted. By an enormous margin, these ballots were for freedom. Who cast most absentee ballots in 1864 in Maryland? Soldiers and sailors, of course.

the consequences of scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous in our time than in any that has come before. It’s perilous and foolhardy for the average citizen to remain ignorant about global warming, say, or ozone depletion, air pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, acid rain, topsoil erosion, tropical deforestation, exponential population growth. Jobs and wages depend on science and technology. If our nation can’t manufacture, at high quality and low price, products people want to buy, then industries will continue to drift away and transfer a little more prosperity to other parts of the world. Consider the social ramifications of fission and fusion power, supercomputers, data “highways,” abortion, radon, massive reductions in strategic weapons, addiction, government eavesdropping on the lives of its citizens, high-resolution TV, airline and airport safety, fetal tissue transplants, health costs, food additives, drugs to ameliorate mania or depression or schizophrenia, animal rights, superconductivity, morning-after pills, alleged hereditary antisocial predispositions, space stations, going to Mars, finding cures for AIDS and cancer. How can we affect national policy—or even make intelligent decisions in our own lives—if we don’t grasp the underlying issues?

The July 1848 Seneca Falls women’s rights convention—brought about by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, among others—issued a “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions” that sanctified a movement’s creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.” The italics are mine; the vision the suffragists’. Susan B. Anthony, an essential figure, echoed the point down the years: “It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed this Union,” she said in 1873 after she illegally cast a ballot for U. S. Grant for president. “And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people—women as well as men.

There have been ample opportunities since 1945 to show that material superiority in war is not enough if the will to fight is lacking. In Algeria, Vietnam and Afghanistan the balance of economic and military strength lay overwhelmingly on the side of France, the United States, and the Soviet Union, but the will to win was slowly eroded. Troops became demoralised and brutalised. Even a political solution was abandoned. In all three cases the greater power withdrew. The Second World War was an altogether different conflict, but the will to win was every bit as important - indeed it was more so. The contest was popularly perceived to be about issues of life and death of whole communities rather than for their fighting forces alone. They were issues, wrote one American observer in 1939, 'worth dying for'. If, he continued, 'the will-to-destruction triumphs, our resolution to preserve civilisation must become more implacable...our courage must mount'. Words like 'will' and 'courage' are difficult for historians to use as instruments of cold analysis. They cannot be quantified; they are elusive of definition; they are products of a moral language that is regarded sceptically today, even tainted by its association with fascist rhetoric. German and Japanese leaders believed that the spiritual strength of their soldiers and workers in some indefinable way compensate for their technical inferiority. When asked after the war why Japan lost, one senior naval officer replied that the Japanese 'were short on spirit, the military spirit was weak...' and put this explanation ahead of any material cause. Within Germany, belief that spiritual strength or willpower was worth more than generous supplies of weapons was not confined to Hitler by any means, though it was certainly a central element in the way he looked at the world. The irony was that Hitler's ambition to impose his will on others did perhaps more than anything to ensure that his enemies' will to win burned brighter still. The Allies were united by nothing so much as a fundamental desire to smash Hitlerism and Japanese militarism and to use any weapon to achieve it. The primal drive for victory at all costs nourished Allied fighting power and assuaged the thirst for vengeance. They fought not only because the sum of their resources added up to victory, but because they wanted to win and were certain that their cause was just. The Allies won the Second World War because they turned their economic strength into effective fighting power, and turned the moral energies of their people into an effective will to win. The mobilisation of national resources in this broad sense never worked perfectly, but worked well enough to prevail. Materially rich, but divided, demoralised, and poorly led, the Allied coalition would have lost the war, however exaggerated Axis ambitions, however flawed their moral outlook. The war made exceptional demands on the Allied peoples. Half a century later the level of cruelty, destruction and sacrifice that it engendered is hard to comprehend, let alone recapture. Fifty years of security and prosperity have opened up a gulf between our own age and the age of crisis and violence that propelled the world into war. Though from today's perspective Allied victory might seem somehow inevitable, the conflict was poised on a knife-edge in the middle years of the war. This period must surely rank as the most significant turning point in the history of the modern age.

Angry people need someone who cares enough to listen long enough to understand the pain. They need someone who listens carefully enough to identify with the person’s anger, wisely enough to express understanding, and courageously enough to respond with a gentle, truthful answer—an answer that seeks resolution of the issue that gave rise to the anger.

Mom asked me this morning if I’d made my New Year’s resolution yet. I told her it’s to get a tattoo on my butt cheek of half a heart, like those friendship necklaces, and trip was going to get the other half-we’re still arguing over who gets the Best butt cheek and who gets the Friends cheek. Each has its own issues in isolation. I feel like there’s a poem in there somewhere.

It was the old colonial policy of divide and rule. This was his conclusion. He believed that it all began with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and that since then the British had been encouraging hatred and enmity between the two sides. He wrote that ever since the Jews were granted the Balfour Declaration the colonizer has been active in fostering the spirit of enmity and hatred between Jews and Arabs and in creating obstacles in the way of any resolution whether by war or peace. Woe unto whoever is inspired to work on any of the complicated issues. If he should dare to exhibit any initiative he is considered a dangerous suspect and his name is added to the list of enemies. The colonizer then presses the button which signals his barking dogs to attack the man and destroy him.

To quote Gould: Wind the tape of time back to Burgess times, and let it play again. If Pikaia does not survive in the replay, we are wiped out of future history—all of us, from shark to robin to orangutan. And I don’t think that any handicapper, given Burgess evidence as known today, would have granted very favorable odds for the persistence of Pikaia. And so, if you wish to ask the question of the ages—why do humans exist?—a major part of the answer, touching those aspects of the issue that science can treat at all, must be: because Pikaia survived the Burgess decimation. This response does not cite a single law of nature; it embodies no statement about predictable evolutionary pathways, no calculation of probabilities based on general rules of anatomy or ecology. The survival of Pikaia was a contingency of “just history.” I do not think that any “higher” answer can be given, and I cannot imagine that any resolution could be more fascinating. We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes—one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way.

While many of us struggle with taking too much ownership over things that are not ours, there’s always a truth that both parties contribute to every conflict. Sometimes your part might be as simple as not speaking up or not staying curious; other times it might be a bigger issue, like a tendency to blame or shout, a lack of accountability, an inability to respect boundaries or projecting insecurities.

Robinhood support phone number?? The Robinhood support phone number is 1-888-(636)-8199 or1-888-(636)-8199. By calling this number, you'll be able to reach a dedicated support agent who can help you with a variety of issues, such as troubleshooting, account recovery, or technical assistance related to your Robinhood . Make sure to have your device information ready when calling for a faster resolution.

kNow}} Robinhood support phone number?? The Robinhood support phone number is 1-888-(636)-8199 or1-888-(636)-8199. By calling this number, you'll be able to reach a dedicated support agent who can help you with a variety of issues, such as troubleshooting, account recovery, or technical assistance related to your Robinhood . Make sure to have your device information ready when calling for a faster resolution.

[P]hilosophy is one subject and ... progress in one place depends on the resolution of issues that lie elsewhere. One is led eventually into almost all other areas and questions. This is certainly true of the work of the great philosophers of the past. Against that high standard, the current professional fixation on distinct 'fields' or areas of academic 'specialization' and 'competence' looks like no more than a bad joke.

The American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC) embarked on a well-financed publicity campaign that helped by late 1947 to generate large majorities—some polls said over 80 percent—of the American people in favor of such a homeland. AZEC's efforts helped induce thirty-three state legislatures to pass resolutions favoring a Jewish state in Palestine. In addition, forty governors, fifty-four senators, and 250 members of congress signed petitions to Truman on the issue. 34

While researching bullying prevention programs for the first edition of this book, I was concerned that many of the programs developed for schools had as their foundation conflict resolution solutions. People who complete such well-intentioned bullying prevention programs become skilled at handling different kinds of conflict and learn effective anger management skills, but they still have no clue how to identify and effectively confront bullying. It is disturbing how often school districts’ procedural handbooks mention the use of a mediator “to resolve” a bullying issue, as if it is a conflict. In doing this we are asking targeted students to be willing to reach some sort of “agreement” with the perpetrators. In conflict, both parties must be willing to compromise or give something up in order to come to a resolution. The bullies are already in a position of power and have robbed the targets of their sense of well-being, dignity, and worth. How much are we asking the targets to give up? With

A powerful person is one who brings the past to an outcome, settling all its unresolved issues. A strong person is one who carries the past into the future, showing that none of its issues is capable of resolution. Power is concerned with what has already happened; strength with what has yet to happen. Power is finite in amount. Strength cannot be measured, because it is an opening and not a closing act. Power refers to the freedom persons have within limits, strength to the freedom persons have with limits.

Yet, for a while, I saw—but with how terrible an exaggeration! I saw the lips of the black-robed judges. They appeared to me white—whiter than the sheet upon which I trace these words—and thin even to grotesqueness; thin with the intensity of their expression of firmness—of immoveable resolution—of stern contempt of human torture. I saw that the decrees of what to me was Fate were still issuing from those lips. I saw them writhe with a deadly locution. I saw them fashion the syllables of my name; and I shuddered because no sound succeeded.

Many years ago I developed a theory of mutual exclusivity. I had observed in my own life that either God solved a problem or I solved the problem but both God and I did not work on the same problem at the same time. If I decided to solve it then God had better things to do than to help me. If I decided to turn the problem over to God then God would resolve the issue. When I refer to my solving the problem, I am referring to taking wilful action and deciding what the correct resolution is. If my family needs food, go out and work to earn money and feed them. There is a great difference between detachment and doing nothing.

In these examples, triangulation becomes a defense. Triangulation becomes a way to offset the abuse of power and to get clarity about the wrongs committed. This kind of triangulation occurs in families where one member is abusing his or her power. Like a poor boss, an abusive parent who is deaf to protest gives the children no choice but to talk about that parent. When a parent refuses to hear the issues of adult children, the children turn either to each other or to outsiders, but both sides lose. The parent loses an opportunity for greater closeness with the child and the adult child must grieve the loss of the sought-for resolution that cannot come about.

Jobs’s intensity was also evident in his ability to focus. He would set priorities, aim his laser attention on them, and filter out distractions. If something engaged him—the user interface for the original Macintosh, the design of the iPod and iPhone, getting music companies into the iTunes Store—he was relentless. But if he did not want to deal with something—a legal annoyance, a business issue, his cancer diagnosis, a family tug—he would resolutely ignore it. That focus allowed him to say no. He got Apple back on track by cutting all except a few core products. He made devices simpler by eliminating buttons, software simpler by eliminating features, and interfaces simpler by eliminating options.

When Libya fought against the Italian occupation, all the Arabs supported the Libyan mujahideen. We Arabs never occupied any country. Well, we occupied Andalusia unjustly, and they drove us out, but since then, we Arabs have not occupied any country. It is our countries that are occupied. Palestine is occupied, Iraq is occupied, and as for the UAE islands... It is not in the best interest of the Arabs for hostility to develop between them and Iran, Turkey, or any of these nations. By no means is it in our interest to turn Iran against us. If there really is a problem, we should decide here to refer this issue to the international court of Justice. This is the proper venue for the resolution of such problems. We should decide to refer the issue of the disputed UAE islands to the International Court of Justice, and we should accept whatever it rules. One time you say this is occupied Arab land, and then you say... This is not clear, and it causes confusion. 80% of the people of the Gulf are Iranians. The ruling families are Arab, but the rest are Iranian. The entire people is Iranian. This is a mess. Iran cannot be avoided. Iran is a Muslim neighbour, and it is not in our interes to become enemies. What is the reason for the invasion and destruction of Iraq, and for killing of one million Iraqis? Let our American friends answer this question: Why Iraq? What is the reason? Is Bin Laden an Iraqi? No he is not. Were those who attacked New York Iraqis? No, they were not. were those who attacked the Pentagon Iraqis? No, they were not. Were there WMDs in Iraq? No, there were not. Even if iraq did have WMDs - Pakistan and India have nuclear bombs, and so do China, Russia, Britain, France and America. Should all these countries be destroyed? Fine, let's destroy all the countries that have WMDs. Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country, and hangs its president, and we all sit on the sidelines, laughing. Why didn't they investigate the hanging of Saddam Hussein? How can a POW be hanged - a president of an Arab country and a member of the Arab League no less! I'm not talking about the policies of Saddam Hussein, or the disagreements we had with him. We all had poitlical disagreements with him and we have such disagreements among ourselves here. We share nothing, beyond this hall. Why won't there be an investigation into the killing of Saddam Hussein? An entire Arab leadership was executed by hanging, yet we sit on the sidelines. Why? Any one of you might be next. Yes. America fought alongside Saddam Hussein against Khomeini. He was their friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld, the US Defense Secretary at the time Iraq was destroyed, was a close friend of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, they sold him out and hanged him. You are friends of America - let's say that ''we'' are, not ''you'' - but one of these days, America may hang us. Brother 'Amr Musa has an idea which he is enthusiastic. He mentioned it in his report. He says that the Arabs have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that there should be an Arab nuclear program. The Arabs have this right. They even have the right to have the right to have a nuclear program for other... But Allah prevails... But who are those Arabs whom you say should have united nuclear program? We are the enemies of one another, I'm sad to say. We all hate one another, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another. Our intelligence agencies conspire against one another, instead of defending us against the enemy. We are the enemies of one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend.

The very felicity of life itself, which depends upon the tranquility and contentment of a well-descended spirit, and the resolution and assurance of a well-ordered soul, ought never to be attributed to any man till he has first been seen to play the last, and, doubtless, the hardest act of his part. There may be disguise and dissimulation in all the rest: where these fine philosophical discourses are only put on, and where accident, not touching us to the quick, gives us leisure to maintain the same gravity of aspect; but in this last scene of death, there is no more counterfeiting: we must speak out plain, and discover what there is of good and clean in the bottom of the pot, "Then at last truth issues from the heart; the visor's gone, the man remains"-Lucretius.

Recall that the collapse of complexity that accompanies 5 percent [i.e. intractable] conflicts happens along many dimensions: - A very complication situation becomes very simple. - A focus on concrete details in the conflict shifts to matters of general abstract principle. - Concerns over obtaining accurate information regarding substantive issues transform into concerns over defending one's identity, ideology, and values. - The out-group, which was seen as made up of many different types of individuals, now are all alike. - The in-group, which was seen as made up of many different types of individuals, now are all similar. - Whereas I once held many contradictions within myself in terms of what I valued, thought, and did; now I am always consistent in this conflict. - Whereas I used to feel different things about this conflict - good, bad, and ambivalent; now I feel only an overwhelming sense of enmity and hate. - I've shifted from long-term thinking and planning toward short-term reactions and concerns. - Where I once had many action options available to me, I now have one: attack. This is the bad news about the 5 percent, but it's also the good news. The collapse of complexity occurs on so many levels, all leading to a similar state of 'us versus them' thinking, that reintroducing a sense of complexity and agency can also be achieved in a wide variety of ways. There are therefore many places to find points of leverage to rupture the certainty and oversimplification that rules in these situations. The question is how to find them.

Amiability: Diplomats must strive to build and maintain cordial personal relations with officials of the government to which they are accredited. Amiability on the surface, no matter how strained relations may be beneath it, keeps open channels of communication that can be vital to the resolution of issues between states when the time to resolve them is at hand. Amity, cross-cultural: "There is a mutual bond of amity and brotherhood between man and man over all the world ... Nor is it distance of place that makes enmity, enmity makes distance. He therefore that keeps peace with me, near or remote, of whatever nation, is to me as far as all civil and human offices an Englishman and a neighbor ... This is gospel." — John Milton, 1649 Anger: Never get angry except on purpose.

Worse to come were Japanese accusations of racism by the United States. The Japanese had been immigrating to America—many of them illegally—in increasing numbers until by the early 1900s they were arriving at the rate of a thousand per month in California alone. West coast newspapers began shouting warnings about the “yellow peril.” This prompted the San Francisco Board of Education in 1906 to issue an order segregating all Japanese schoolchildren from the white student population. Moreover, the California legislature had passed a resolution that branded Japanese immigrants as “immoral, intemperate [and] quarrelsome.”6 Not only that but workers in California began rioting and beating immigrant Japanese who, they claimed, were willing to work for “coolie” wages, thus putting them out of their jobs.

The way a friend of mine describes his approach to work offers a valuable analogy for managing some interpersonal situations: “I have two drawers in my desk. One is for the things I must do something about, and the other is for the things time will take care of.” Time will take care of most people who refuse to let go. Some of these persistent people suffer from delusions, the very definition of which explains why they don’t let go: a false belief that cannot be shaken even in the face of compelling contrary evidence. Most harassers, however, have something less than a delusion, something we might call an alternate perception or an unreasonable opinion. The resolution they seek is usually not attainable, and these people are so confounding because the original issue they cling to is seen from their unusual perspective

There is no difference in the objective compatibility between those couples who are unhappy and those who are happy.' Hudson found that couple who feel 'content and warmth in their relationship' don't believe having compatible personalities is the issue. On the contrary, they believe it was their attitude that made the relationship work. The strength of the relationship does not depend on how alike they are, more their willingness to adapt and build a bank of warmth and affection that helps buffer the annoyance of their differences. This supports the concept of the development of compatibility, having a growth mindset('I believe I can change') rather than a fixed mindset ('This is how I am'). Having an attitude of growth means going through difficulties and seeing them as an opportunity to know each other better and bolster the relationship through the resolution of the conflict.

I know that the consequences of scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous in our time than in any that has come before. It’s perilous and foolhardy for the average citizen to remain ignorant about global warming, say, or ozone depletion, air pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, acid rain, topsoil erosion, tropical deforestation, exponential population growth. Jobs and wages depend on science and technology. If our nation can’t manufacture, at high quality and low price, products people want to buy, then industries will continue to drift away and transfer a little more prosperity to other parts of the world. Consider the social ramifications of fission and fusion power, supercomputers, data “highways,” abortion, radon, massive reductions in strategic weapons, addiction, government eavesdropping on the lives of its citizens, high-resolution TV, airline and airport safety, fetal tissue transplants, health costs, food additives, drugs to ameliorate mania or depression or schizophrenia, animal rights, superconductivity, morning-after pills, alleged hereditary antisocial predispositions, space stations, going to Mars, finding cures for AIDS and cancer. How can we affect national policy—or even make intelligent decisions in our own lives—if we don’t grasp the underlying issues? As I write, Congress is dissolving its own Office of Technology Assessment—the only organization specifically tasked to provide advice to the House and Senate on science and technology. Its competence and integrity over the years have been exemplary. Of the 535 members of the U.S. Congress, rarely in the twentieth century have as many as one percent had any significant background in science. The last scientifically literate President may have been Thomas Jefferson.* So how do Americans decide these matters? How do they instruct their representatives? Who in fact makes these decisions, and on what basis? —

The American Negro saw, in the land from which he had been snatched and thrown into slavery, a great pageant of political progress. He realized that just thirty years ago there were only three independent nations in the whole of Africa. He knew that by 1963 more than thirty-four African nations had risen from colonial bondage. The Negro saw black statesmen voting on vital issues in the United Nations—and knew that in many cities of his own land he was not permitted to take that significant walk to the ballot box. He saw black kings and potentates ruling from palaces—and knew he had been condemned to move from small ghettos to larger ones. Witnessing the drama of Negro progress elsewhere in the world, witnessing a level of conspicuous consumption at home exceeding anything in our history, it was natural that by 1963 Negroes would rise with resolution and demand a share of governing power, and living conditions measured by American standards rather than by the standards of colonial impoverishment.

In Aristotle’s classic form, outlined in The Poetics, drama takes a three-part form. In Part 1, which I call the World of the Story, we are introduced to the characters, the story’s setting, and the crisis that the hero faces. At the end of this part, the hero takes on a challenge—sometimes by choice, sometimes without choice. In Part 2, known as The Rising Action, we see the hero—and other characters—struggle to confront the challenge. They face one obstacle after another. Each obstacle sharpens their minds, tests their resolve, and pushes the story forward. These challenges get more and more intense. Finally, they achieve some breakthrough. Part 3, known as the Resolution and Denouement, brings the drama to closure. The hero and other characters begin to settle into a new way of living, often chastened but always wiser. All the issues get settled. In Cold Blood does not seem to follow a strict three-act format. The book is, after all, broken into four sections. But when we look closely, we see that the middle two sections show the rising action.

To our amazement Jimmy received a letter, dated August 20, 1963, from Bertrand Russell, the world-famous philosopher and peace activist, saying “I have recently finished your remarkable book The American Resolution” and “have been greatly impressed with its power and insight.” The letter goes on to ask for Jimmy’s views on whether American whites “will understand the negro [sic] revolt because “the survival of mankind may well follow or fail to follow from political and social behavior of Americans in the next decades.” On September 5 Jimmy wrote back a lengthy reply saying among other things that “so far, with the exception of the students, there has been no social force in the white population which the Negroes can respect and a handful of liberals joining in a demonstration doesn’t change this one bit.” Russell replied on September 18 with more questions that Jimmy answered in an even longer letter dated December 22. Meanwhile, Russell had sent a telegram to the November 21 Town Hall meeting in New York City at which Jimmy was scheduled to speak, warning Negroes not to resort to violence. In response Jimmy said at the meeting that “I too would like to hope that the issues of our revolt might be resolved by peaceful means,” but “the issues and grievances were too deeply imbedded in the American system and the American peoples so that the very things Russell warned against might just have to take place if the Negroes in the U.S.A. are ever to walk the streets as free men.” In his December 22 letter Jimmy repeats what he said at the meeting and then patiently explains to Russell that what has historically been considered democracy in the United States has actually been fascism for millions of Negroes. The letter concludes: I believe that it is your responsibility as I believe that it is my responsibility to recognize and record this, so that in the future words do not confuse the struggle but help to clarify it. This is what I think philosophers should make clear. Because even though Negroes in the United States still think they are struggling for democracy, in fact democracy is what they are struggling against. This exchange between Jimmy and Russell has to be seen to be believed. In a way it epitomizes the 1960s—Jimmy Boggs, the Alabama-born autoworker, explaining the responsibility of philosophers to The Earl Russell, O.M., F.R.S., in his time probably the West’s best-known philosopher. Within the next few years The American Revolution was translated and published in French, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese. To this day it remains a page-turner for grassroots activists because it is so personal and yet political, so down to earth and yet visionary.

He wanted to lead a division in the army of - who? God, right, goodness, they were names for the same thing - into battle against EVIL. He wanted issues and battle lines and never mind standing in the cold outside supermarkets handing out leaflets about the lettuce boycott or the grape strike. He wanted to see EVIL with its cerements of deception cast aside, with every feature of its visage clear. He wanted to slug it out toe to toe with EVIL, like Muhammad Ali against Joe Frazier, the Celtics against the Knicks, Jacob against the Angel. He wanted this struggle to be pure, unhindered by the politics that rode the back of every social issue like a deformed Siamese twin. He had wanted all this since he had wanted to be a priest, and that call had come to him at the age of fourteen, when he had been inflamed by the story of St Stephen, the first Christian martyr, who had been stoned to death and who had seen Christ at the moment of his death. Heaven was a dim attraction compared to that of fighting - and perhaps perishing - in the service of the Lord. But there were no battles. There were only skirmishes of vague resolution. And EVIL did not wear one face but many, and all of them were vacuous and more often than not the chin was slicked with drool. In fact, he was being forced to the conclusion that there was no EVIL in the world at all but only evil - or perhaps (evil).

It's important to remember that having a conversation about us (LGBT) without us will usually be a recycling or preconceived ideas and misconceptions. Can you imagine a group of male church leaders discussing the role of women in the church without females present. We would call that misogyny. Or church leadership discussing indigenous issues without ever consulting with indigenous people themselves to get insight into what their life experience is really all about. We would call that white supremacy/racism/elitism. The church has done a great deal of talking about us but rarely has spoken with us. So when church leaders discuss LGBT people, relationships and the community without speaking with or spending time getting to know LGBT people it does beg the question why. What is there to fear? Why the exclusion? Is this another evidence of homophobia? It's time for the church to invite LGBT people into the conversation. For some this is a conversation about their thoughts and beliefs but for us it is about who we are. You can ask questions. What was it like to sit in church and hear the word abomination to describe your orientation. What was it like to get to the point of coming out knowing you might be rejected by those you've loved and a church you've served.? How did you find resolution of your Christian beliefs and your sexuality? In listening you will learn. That's why it's so important to remember. No conversation about us, without us.

How to Contact an Actual Person at Robinhood Support To contact an actual person at Robinhood Support, simply dial 1-888-(636)-8199. You will be connected to a knowledgeable support representative who can assist you with any questions or concerns regarding your Robinhood. Whether you're dealing with technical issues, troubleshooting, or need help understanding how to use your device, their team is there to provide expert guidance and solutions. Be ready to provide relevant details about your issue to ensure a quick and efficient resolution. Robinhood Contact Options Robinhood offers several ways to get in touch, whether you prefer calling, chatting, or reaching out via email. Calling Robinhood Hotline 1-888-(636)-8199 The most direct way to talk to a live person is by calling their customer service hotline. The Robinhood Toll-Free Number is 1-888-(636)-8199. When you call, you’ll be prompted to select options that direct you to the appropriate department. If you’re unsure which option to choose, pressing “0” or saying “agent” can often connect you to a live representative. Using Robinhood Live Chat Feature If waiting on hold isn’t your style, you can use the live chat feature on the Robinhood website. Navigate to the Help section and select the chat option to connect with a real person who can assist you. Reaching Out via Email For less urgent issues, emailing Robinhood is another option. While response times may vary, this method ensures you have written documentation of your issue and its resolution.

Spelling Correction on Delta Ticket -Live Agent Help If you’ve noticed a spelling mistake on your Delta Airlines ticket, it’s essential to correct it as soon as possible to avoid any issues during check-in or boarding. The first step is to get in touch with Delta Airlines customer service at +1(844)634-0511. Whether the error is in your first name, last name, or a title like Mr. or Ms., customer service can assist you with making the necessary correction. For minor spelling corrections, customer service can typically process the change quickly, and you won’t experience any significant delays. However, if the correction involves a larger issue or if the ticket has already been issued with a significant discrepancy, you may need to cancel the reservation and rebook the ticket with the correct name. To discuss your options, reach out to customer service at +1(844)634-0511. They’ll help you determine whether your ticket is refundable and guide you through the rebooking process if necessary. Once your spelling correction is made, be sure to check your boarding pass to confirm that it reflects the updated information. It’s important to double-check everything to avoid any issues at the airport. If you encounter any problems or if the correction is not reflected on your boarding pass, call +1(844)634-0511 immediately for assistance. For any spelling issues or name discrepancies on your Delta Airlines ticket, reach out to customer service at +1(844)634-0511 for prompt and efficient resolution. They’ll ensure that your reservation is corrected, and your boarding pass is updated accordingly, so you can enjoy a smooth travel experience.

Delta Flight Name Change Booking -Fast Resolution If you’ve made a booking with Delta Airlines +1(844)634-0511 but need to make a name change on your ticket, you can quickly resolve this by calling customer service at +1(844)634-0511. Whether you need to edit a spelling mistake or need a full name change due to marriage, Delta Airlines is ready to assist you with the name change process. Begin by contacting Delta Airlines at +1(844)634-0511, where a live agent will walk you through the name change procedure. You will need to provide your reservation number and flight details so the representative +1(844)634-0511 can access your booking and assist you effectively. +1(844)634-0511 If the change is straightforward, such as fixing a typo or misspelling, it can usually be done at no cost. However, +1(844)634-0511 if you need to replace the passenger’s name due to a significant change like marriage, you might need to provide supporting documentation. Once the name correction is confirmed, +1(844)634-0511 the agent will make the necessary modifications to your ticket and boarding pass. If your ticket is +1(844)634-0511 non-refundable, additional fees might apply, but the representative will provide all the details, so you’re fully informed. You may also need to +1(844)634-0511 rebook or cancel the current reservation in some cases, depending on the type of change. By getting in touch with Delta Airlines at +1(844)634-0511 as soon as you notice any discrepancies in your ticket, you can resolve the issue quickly and avoid problems +1(844)634-0511 at the airport. After the name change is complete, you’ll receive an updated boarding pass with the correct name listed.

Name Correction on Delta Flight Ticket -Call the Expert If you need to make a name correction on your Delta +1(844)634-0511 Airlines flight ticket, you should contact their customer service right away by dialing +1(844)634-0511. Correcting minor name details like a spelling mistake or a change due to marriage is essential for your flight's security and travel documents. +1(844)634-0511 Delta Airlines makes it relatively simple to make minor corrections, but it's important to act immediately to avoid issues with your boarding pass. When you call +1(844)634-0511, a live agent will guide you through the steps to ensure your name is correctly reflected on your ticket. They’ll ask for details such as your booking number and flight details to verify your reservation +1(844)634-0511 before making any changes. Keep in mind that the airline is strict about name changes and will only allow corrections that fall within specific guidelines, like fixing misspellings or replacing names due to legal changes like marriage. It's important to note that name corrections are +1(844)634-0511 different from full name changes. If you need to change the passenger’s name on the ticket entirely, Delta Airlines might require you to cancel your current booking and rebook a new flight, +1(844)634-0511 depending on the circumstances. For any major modifications or cancellations, the customer service team at +1(844)634-0511 can assist you in making the best decision for your situation. Additionally, if you realize the name correction is +1(844)634-0511 necessary before your flight departs, contacting Delta Airlines as soon as possible can help avoid unnecessary complications at the airport. +1(844)634-0511 This way, you can ensure your boarding pass matches your identification without issue. For a faster resolution, you can also ask if the change +1(844)634-0511 requires any fees or if it’s covered under their policy. Always make sure to confirm the updated information once the correction has been made to avoid delays at the airport.

The first phase of the war was led by the IAF. It targeted Hamas rocket launchers, commanders and command posts that Hamas deliberately embedded in Gaza’s densely populated civilian neighborhoods. It placed its main headquarters in a hospital and its stockpiles of rockets and missiles in hospitals, schools and mosques, often using children as human shields. Before bombing these Hamas targets, in an effort to minimize civilian casualties the IDF issued warning to civilians to evacuate the premises. Hamas continued to rocket Israeli cities. I instructed the army to prepare for a ground operation to take out the tunnels. Our soldiers would be susceptible to Palestinian ground fire, booby traps, land mines and antitank missiles, some fired by terrorists emerging from underground. As casualties would inevitably mount on both sides in this door-to-door warfare, I realized that Israel would face growing international criticism. But there was no other choice. I called Obama, the first of many phone conversations we had during the operation. He said he supported Israel’s right of self-defense but was very clear on its limits. “Bibi,” he said, “we won’t support a ground action.” “Barack, I don’t want a ground action,” I said. “But if our intelligence shows that the terror tunnels are about to penetrate our territory, I won’t have a choice.” I repeated this conversation with the many foreign leaders whom I called and who called me, thus setting the international stage for a ground action. Most accepted what I said. The same could not be said for the international media. It hammered Israel on the growing number of Palestinian casualties from our air attacks, conveniently absolving Hamas of targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians. The media also bought Hamas’s inflated numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties, and even its staging of fake funerals. We unmasked many of those being claimed as civilians as Hamas terrorists by providing their names, unit affiliation and other identifying data. I visited the IDF’s Southern Command to meet the brigade commanders who would lead the ground action. They were feverishly working on the means to locate and destroy the tunnels. They were brave, resolute and smart. They knew very well the dangers they and their men would face. So did their soldiers, many of whom did not return.

Solemnly, for once looking a little awed, a little like a small-town boy on Broadway, Windrip took the oath, administered by the Chief Justice (who disliked him very much indeed) and, edging even closer to the microphone, squawked, "My fellow citizens, as the President of the United States of America, I want to inform you that the real New Deal has started right this minute, and we're all going to enjoy the manifold liberties to which our history entitles us—and have a whale of a good time doing it! I thank you!" That was his first act as President. His second was to take up residence in the White House, where he sat down in the East Room in his stocking feet and shouted at Lee Sarason, "This is what I've been planning to do now for six years! I bet this is what Lincoln used to do! Now let 'em assassinate me!" His third, in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, was to order that the Minute Men be recognized as an unpaid but official auxiliary of the Regular Army, subject only to their own officers, to Buzz, and to High Marshal Sarason; and that rifles, bayonets, automatic pistols, and machine guns be instantly issued to them by government arsenals. That was at 4 P.M. Since 3 P.M., all over the country, bands of M.M.'s had been sitting gloating over pistols and guns, twitching with desire to seize them. Fourth coup was a special message, next morning, to Congress (in session since January fourth, the third having been a Sunday), demanding the instant passage of a bill embodying Point Fifteen of his election platform—that he should have complete control of legislation and execution, and the Supreme Court be rendered incapable of blocking anything that it might amuse him to do. By Joint Resolution, with less than half an hour of debate, both houses of Congress rejected that demand before 3 P.M., on January twenty-first. Before six, the President had proclaimed that a state of martial law existed during the "present crisis," and more than a hundred Congressmen had been arrested by Minute Men, on direct orders from the President. The Congressmen who were hotheaded enough to resist were cynically charged with "inciting to riot"; they who went quietly were not charged at all. It was blandly explained to the agitated press by Lee Sarason that these latter quiet lads had been so threatened by "irresponsible and seditious elements" that they were merely being safeguarded. Sarason did not use the phrase "protective arrest," which might have suggested things.

How do I talk directly on Robinhood? [‼RH-Point™] Talking directly to Robinhood support is simple—just call ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA). Many users who can’t login to Robinhood rely on ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) for immediate solutions. If your Robinhood 2FA code not received is blocking transactions, ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) connects you with trained agents. The number ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) is recognized as the Robinhood customer support number, helping users reset Robinhood phone numbers or request a Robinhood contact update. Customers often find calling ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) saves valuable time. Dial ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) now to get fast, personalized help. When asking “How do I talk directly on Robinhood?” ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) the solution is calling ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA). Most users choose ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) because it connects them directly to support without long wait times. If you can’t login to Robinhood, or your Robinhood 2FA code not received, ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) will help instantly. Account security, contact updates, and reset Robinhood phone number requests are easily solved at ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA). Customers who called ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) report fast resolution and peace of mind. Use ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) anytime you need quick Robinhood support. To speak directly on Robinhood, simply call ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) and you’ll be connected to the right representative. People often use ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) for account recovery, login problems, or updating contact information. If your Robinhood 2FA code not received issue persists, the support staff at ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) can resolve it quickly. The Robinhood customer support number ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) is designed to give you fast answers without delays. Users depend on ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) for everything from password resets to account security checks. Call ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) for smooth, direct communication with Robinhood today. For anyone needing to speak directly on Robinhood, the fastest option is dialing ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA). Users facing can’t login to Robinhood scenarios often solve them quickly with ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA). If your Robinhood 2FA code not received keeps blocking access, call ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) right away. The number ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) is also perfect for a Robinhood contact update or to reset Robinhood phone number. With ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA), customer support is simple, reliable, and effective. Call ⭐ 1*(866)*401*0866(US/OTA) anytime you need trusted Robinhood customer service.

What, then, is addiction? In the words of a consensus statement by addiction experts in 2001, addiction is a “chronic neurobiological disease… characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.” The key features of substance addiction are the use of drugs or alcohol despite negative consequences, and relapse. I’ve heard some people shrug off their addictive tendencies by saying, for example, “I can’t be an alcoholic. I don’t drink that much…” or “I only drink at certain times.” The issue is not the quantity or even the frequency, but the impact. “An addict continues to use a drug when evidence strongly demonstrates the drug is doing significant harm…. If users show the pattern of preoccupation and compulsive use repeatedly over time with relapse, addiction can be identified.” Helpful as such definitions are, we have to take a broader view to understand addiction fully. There is a fundamental addiction process that can express itself in many ways, through many different habits. The use of substances like heroin, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol are only the most obvious examples, the most laden with the risk of physiological and medical consequences. Many behavioural, nonsubstance addictions can also be highly destructive to physical health, psychological balance, and personal and social relationships. Addiction is any repeated behaviour, substance-related or not, in which a person feels compelled to persist, regardless of its negative impact on his life and the lives of others. Addiction involves: 1. compulsive engagement with the behaviour, a preoccupation with it; 2. impaired control over the behaviour; 3. persistence or relapse, despite evidence of harm; and 4. dissatisfaction, irritability or intense craving when the object — be it a drug, activity or other goal — is not immediately available. Compulsion, impaired control, persistence, irritability, relapse and craving — these are the hallmarks of addiction — any addiction. Not all harmful compulsions are addictions, though: an obsessive-compulsive, for example, also has impaired control and persists in a ritualized and psychologically debilitating behaviour such as, say, repeated hand washing. The difference is that he has no craving for it and, unlike the addict, he gets no kick out of his compulsion. How does the addict know she has impaired control? Because she doesn’t stop the behaviour in spite of its ill effects. She makes promises to herself or others to quit, but despite pain, peril and promises, she keeps relapsing. There are exceptions, of course. Some addicts never recognize the harm their behaviours cause and never form resolutions to end them. They stay in denial and rationalization. Others openly accept the risk, resolving to live and die “my way.

What is the motive for this ‘fugitive’ way of saying “I”? It is motivated by Dasein’s falling; for as falling, it *flees* in the face of itself into the “they.” When the “I” talks in the ‘natural’ manner, this is performed by the they-self. What expresses itself in the ‘I’ is that Self which, proximally and for the most part, I am *not* authentically. When one is absorbed in the everyday multiplicity and the rapid succession [*Sich-jagen] of that with which one is concerned, the Self of the self-forgetful “I am concerned” shows itself as something simple which is constantly selfsame but indefinite and empty. Yet one *is* that with which one concerns oneself. In the ‘natural’ ontical way in which the “I” talks, the phenomenal content of the Dasein which one has in view in the "I" gets overlooked; but this gives *no justification for our joining in this overlooking of it*, or for forcing upon the problematic of the Self an inappropriate ‘categorial’ horizon when we Interpret the “I” ontologically. Of course by thus refusing to follow the everyday way in which the “I” talks, our ontological Interpretation of the ‘I’ has by no means *solved* the problem; but it has indeed *prescribed the direction* for any further inquiries. In the “I,” we have in view that entity which one is in ‘being-in-the-world’. Being-already-in-a-world, however, as Being-alongside-the-ready-to-hand-within-the-world, means equiprimordially that one is ahead of oneself. With the ‘I’, what we have in view is that entity for which the *issue* is the Being of the entity that it is. With the ‘I’, care expresses itself, though proximally and for the most part in the ‘fugitive’ way in which the “I” talks when it concerns itself with something. The they-self keeps on saying “I” most loudly and most frequently because at bottom it *is not authentically* itself, and evades its authentic potentiality-for-Being. If the ontological constitution of the Self is not to be traced back either to an “I”-substance or to a ‘subject’, but if, on the contrary, the everyday fugitive way in which we keep on saying “I” must be understood in terms of our *authentic* potentiality-for-Being, then the proposition that the Self is the basis of care and constantly present-at-hand, is one that still does not follow. Selfhood is to be discerned existentially only in one’s authentic potentiality-for-Being-one’s-Self—that is to say, in the authenticity of Dasein’s Being *as care*. In terms of care the *constancy of the Self*, as the supposed persistence of the *subjectum*, gets clarified. But the phenomenon of this authentic potentiality-for-Being also opens our eyes for the *constancy of the Self*, in the double sense of steadiness and steadfastness, is the *authentic* counter-possibility to the non-Self-constancy which is characteristic of irresolute falling. Existentially, “*Self-constancy*” signifies nothing other than anticipatory resoluteness. The ontological structure of such resoluteness reveals the existentiality of the Self’s Selfhood." ―from_Being and Time_. Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, pp. 368-369

The Zelle main customer service number is 1-800-Zelle +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person), where you can reach a live representative 24/7. Whether you’re dealing with booking changes, flight cancellations, or have questions regarding refunds or compensation, speaking to a live person ensures prompt resolution. You can also reach out via American’s live chat feature or email support for assistance. For all your inquiries, call +1↳855↳(567)↳9448‬ // +1↳855↳(567)↳9448‬ OTA (Live Person). This guide explains +1↳855↳(567)↳9448‬ how to contact Zelle customer service effectively, along with tips for minimizing wait times. To speak to a live representative, dial +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person). Why Contact a Live Person at Zelle? There are many reasons why speaking to a live person might be the best route to resolving your issue. Common scenarios include: Flight changes or cancellations: If your plans have changed, you need live assistance at Zelle +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) with adjusting or canceling your flights, or you’re dealing with flight cancellations and delays. Booking clarification: Sometimes you need more details or help to understand the specifics of your Zelle booking +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) and reservation. Refunds and compensation: Automated systems often cannot handle complex refund requests or compensation claims, making & Zelle live agent +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) invaluable. Technical glitches: If there’s a technical issue with your booking, like payment errors, Zelle live customer service +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) can resolve it quickly. Zelle’s Contact Options Zelle offers +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) several ways to get in touch with their customer service, whether you prefer calling, chatting, or reaching out on social media. Calling Zelle’s Customer Service Hotline The most straightforward way to talk to a live person is by calling their customer service hotline. Zelle’s main customer service number is 1-800-Zelle +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) or +1-855⇌»⇌567⇌9448™ or U.S.+1⇌855⇌567⇌9448 [US- Zelle™] OTA (Live Person) OTA (Live Person). When you call, you’ll be prompted to select options that direct you to the appropriate department, but be patient—there is always a way to reach a live person. Using Zelle’s Live Chat Feature If waiting on hold isn’t your style, you can use Zelle’s live chat feature. Simply head over to their website, navigate to the Help section, and select the chat option. This connects you with a real person who can assist you just as well as phone support can. Reaching Out on Social Media Zelle is active on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Many customers have found that sending a message via these platforms leads to quick responses, especially for general inquiries.

Ways To Contact Expedia Customer Service: By Phone, Chat and Email | A Step by Step Detail Support Guide To reach a live person at Expedia customer service for support 1-888-269-3709 , you can call their 24/7 Expedia Phone number hotline at (1-888-269-3709) OTA (Live Person) or 1-800-Expedia (1-888-269-3709). You can also use the live chat feature on their website or reach out to them via email. Speaking with a live representative at Expedia is straightforward . Whether you're dealing with booking issues, need to make changes to your travel plans, or have specific inquiries, reaching out to a live agent can quickly resolve your concerns. This guide explains the steps to contact Expedia customer service via phone and provides tips on the best times to call to minimize wait times. Why Contact a Live Person at Expedia? There are many reasons why speaking to a live person might be the best route to resolving your issue. Common scenarios include: Flight changes or cancellations: If your plans have changed, you need live assistance at Expedia (1-888-269-3709) with adjusting or canceling your flights, or you’re dealing with flight cancellations and delays. Booking clarification: Sometimes you need more details or help to understand the specifics of your Expedia booking (1-888-269-3709) and reservation. Refunds and compensation: Automated systems often cannot handle complex refund requests or compensation claims, making & Expedia live agent (1-888-269-3709) invaluable. Technical glitches: If there’s a technical issue with your booking, like payment errors, Expedia live customer service (1-888-269-3709) can resolve it quickly. Expedia’s Contact Options Expedia offers several ways to get in touch with their customer service, whether you prefer calling, chatting, or reaching out on social media. 1. Calling Expedia’s Customer Service Hotline The most straightforward way to talk to a live person is by calling their customer service hotline. Expedia’s main customer service number is 1-800-Expedia (1-888-269-3709) or (1-888-269-3709) OTA (Live Person). When you call, you’ll be prompted to select options that direct you to the appropriate department, but be patient—there is always a way to reach a live person. 2. Using Expedia’s Live Chat Feature If waiting on hold isn’t your style, you can use Expedia’s live chat feature. Simply head over to their website, navigate to the Help section, and select the chat option. This connects you with a real person who can assist you just as well as phone support can. 3. Reaching Out on Social Media Expedia is active on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Many customers have found that sending a message via these platforms leads to quick responses, especially for general inquiries. 4. Utilizing the Expedia Mobile App for Support The Expedia app Expedia desde un cellular (1-888-269-3709) is another handy way to contact support. It provides options to call or chat with customer service directly from the app, giving you another method to reach a live person without needing to switch devices. 5. Emailing Expedia’s Support For less urgent issues, emailing Expedia is another option. While response times can be longer, this method ensures that you have written documentation of your issue and any communication regarding its resolution.

How do I file a claim with Expedia? To file a claim with Expedia, you have several options depending on your issue: Filing a Claim via Expedia Website Log in to your Expedia account. Navigate to “My Trips” and select the booking in question. Click on “File a claim” or “Request a refund”, depending on your issue. Follow the prompts to submit your claim. For assistance, you can contact Expedia Customer Service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Contacting Expedia Customer Service Phone Support: Call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026 for immediate assistance. Live Chat: Access the Live Chat feature on the Expedia website or mobile app for real-time support. Email Support: For non-urgent matters, you can email Expedia at support@expedia.com or refunds@expedia.com. TechBullion Claim Processing Time After submitting your claim, Expedia typically processes refunds within 7–14 business days. However, processing times may vary depending on the nature of the claim and the involved service providers. For more information, visit the Expedia Help Center. If you need assistance with a specific type of claim, feel free to provide more details, and I can guide you through the process. How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? If you're not satisfied with the resolution from Expedia's customer support, you can escalate the issue. Call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026 to request to speak with a supervisor or manager. Be sure to provide your booking details and explain the situation clearly for a faster resolution. How can I ask a question at Expedia? To ask a question at Expedia, you can call their customer support at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Alternatively, you can use their Live Chat feature on the Expedia website or app for real-time assistance. Be ready to provide your booking details for a quicker response. How do I complain to Expedia? To file a complaint with Expedia, you can call their customer service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Clearly explain your issue and request to speak with a supervisor if needed. Alternatively, use the Live Chat feature on their website for quicker assistance and resolution. Can I get a full refund from Expedia? You may be eligible for a full refund from Expedia depending on the type of booking and cancellation policy. To inquire, call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Expedia typically offers refunds for cancellations within 24 hours of booking or if the airline/hotel has specific refund policies. How do I file a dispute with Expedia? To file a dispute with Expedia, contact customer support at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Provide details about your booking and the issue you're disputing. If needed, escalate to a supervisor. You can also file a dispute through the Live Chat feature on their website for faster resolution. How do I communicate with Expedia? To communicate with Expedia, you can call their customer service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Alternatively, use the Live Chat feature on the Expedia website or app for immediate assistance. You can also email support for non-urgent inquiries or visit their Help Center for detailed guidance. How do I communicate To Expedia? To communicate with Expedia, you can call their customer service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. For quicker responses, use the Live Chat feature on their website or mobile app. Additionally, you can reach them by email or visit their Help Center for support with bookings or issues. How do I get a human at Expedia? To speak with a human at Expedia, call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Follow the prompts to bypass automated responses, or press the option for customer support. You can also request to speak to a representative or supervisor directly if needed for more complex issues. How do I lodge a complaint against Expedia? To lodge a complaint against Expedia, call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026 and explain your issue.

How do I communicate To Expedia? To communicate with Expedia, you can call their customer service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. For quicker responses, use the Live Chat feature on their website or mobile app. Additionally, you can reach them by email or visit their Help Center for support with bookings or issues. How do I get a human at Expedia? To speak with a human at Expedia, call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Follow the prompts to bypass automated responses, or press the option for customer support. You can also request to speak to a representative or supervisor directly if needed for more complex issues. How do I lodge a complaint against Expedia? To lodge a complaint against Expedia, call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026 and explain your issue. If the matter isn’t resolved, request to escalate to a supervisor. You can also file complaints through their Live Chat feature or contact their customer service via email for further assistance. Who do I report Expedia to? If you need to report an issue with Expedia, you can contact their customer service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. For unresolved complaints, you may escalate to a supervisor. Additionally, you can file complaints with regulatory bodies like the Better Business Bureau or the U.S. Department of Transportation. How do I file a claim with Expedia? To file a claim with Expedia, you have several options depending on your issue: Filing a Claim via Expedia Website Log in to your Expedia account. Navigate to “My Trips” and select the booking in question. Click on “File a claim” or “Request a refund”, depending on your issue. Follow the prompts to submit your claim. For assistance, you can contact Expedia Customer Service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Contacting Expedia Customer Service Phone Support: Call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026 for immediate assistance. Live Chat: Access the Live Chat feature on the Expedia website or mobile app for real-time support. Email Support: For non-urgent matters, you can email Expedia at support@expedia.com or refunds@expedia.com. TechBullion Claim Processing Time After submitting your claim, Expedia typically processes refunds within 7–14 business days. However, processing times may vary depending on the nature of the claim and the involved service providers. For more information, visit the Expedia Help Center. If you need assistance with a specific type of claim, feel free to provide more details, and I can guide you through the process. How do I escalate a problem with Expedia? If you're not satisfied with the resolution from Expedia's customer support, you can escalate the issue. Call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026 to request to speak with a supervisor or manager. Be sure to provide your booking details and explain the situation clearly for a faster resolution. How can I ask a question at Expedia? To ask a question at Expedia, you can call their customer support at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Alternatively, you can use their Live Chat feature on the Expedia website or app for real-time assistance. Be ready to provide your booking details for a quicker response. How do I complain to Expedia? To file a complaint with Expedia, you can call their customer service at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Clearly explain your issue and request to speak with a supervisor if needed. Alternatively, use the Live Chat feature on their website for quicker assistance and resolution. Can I get a full refund from Expedia? You may be eligible for a full refund from Expedia depending on the type of booking and cancellation policy. To inquire, call +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026. Expedia typically offers refunds for cancellations within 24 hours of booking or if the airline/hotel has specific refund policies. How do I file a dispute with Expedia? To file a dispute with Expedia, contact customer support at +1-877-567-9375 or +1-877-398-1026.

... the usual problem of the reformer [is] that we have to run the economic system to protect our people who are now locked into it while we change the system. And if you run it without seeking to change it then you are locked in the decay of the system, but if you simply pass resolutions to change it without consulting those who are locked in the decaying system, then you become irrelevant to the people you seek to represent… We cannot content ourselves with speaking only to ourselves; we must raise these issues publicly and involve the community groups because we champion what they stand for. We must win the argument, broaden the base of membership, not only to win the election but to generate the public support to carry the policies through.

King and Ali were not willing allies. Doctor King denounced the Nation of Islam for encouraging African Americans to abandon Christianity. He criticized it for its refusal to include Whites in any resolution of civil rights issues. He declared that ‘the hatred and despair of the black nationalist’ was inimical to the cause, which should be based on love.

Forgiveness is the habit of non-retaliation; or better, it is the judgment non-retaliation renders. We cannot forgive virtues. We forgive only sins. But as it issues its condemnation of sin, as it resolutely names a violation that cannot be undone, forgiveness also accepts that past as unalterable and so imagines what possibilities for the future its battered history might bear. If forgiveness is more mourning than miracle, a manner of living with rather than magically fixing a broken past, then its posture is paradoxically forward facing. Since forgiveness addresses the past so unflinchingly, it also necessarily and paradoxically sets itself honestly toward whatever future can actually come to be in the wake of that past. In attempting to find the past's wrongs livable even if irrevocable, forgiveness requires and inspires imagination.

The ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority •  The ability to recognize fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just as tools to be manipulated for one’s own profit •  The ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one’s fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one’s own nation •  The ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data •  The ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them •  The ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one’s own local group •  The ability to see one’s own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution This is only a sketch, but it is at least a beginning in articulating what we need.

18.22. you shall not lie with a male like lying with a woman. Why is male homosexuality explicitly forbidden in the Torah but not female? Some would surmise that it is because women are controlled in a patriarchal Israelite society; and so a woman would simply have no choice but to marry a man. But this is not an adequate explanation, because there would still be opportunities for female homosexual liaisons. Some would say that the concern is the seed, which is understood to come from the male, and therefore is "wasted" in another male. But the text calls homosexuality "an offensive thing" (in older translations: "an abomination"), which certainly sounds like an abhorrence of the act, and not just a concern with the practical matter of reproduction. The reason may rather be because the Torah comes from a world in which there is polygamy. A man can have sex with his two wives simultaneously. That this is understood to be permissible is implied by the fact that the law in v. 18 above forbids it only with sisters (see the comment). Or, even if the above case means marriage and not simultaneous sex, then simultaneous sex still is not forbidden anywhere in the Torah. If simultaneous sex with one's two (or more) wives is practiced, it would be difficult to allow this while forbidding female homosexuality. (At minimum, it could require a number of laws specifying what sort of contact is permissible and under what circumstances.) In the present state of knowledge concerning homosexuality, it is difficult to justify its prohibition in the Torah. All of the movements in Judaism (and other religions) are currently contending with this issue. Its resolution ultimately must lie in the law of Deuteronomy that states that, for difficult matters of the law, people must turn to the authorities of their age, to those who are competent to judge, and those judges must decide (Deut 17:8-9). In my own view, the present understanding of the nature of homosexuality indicates that it is not an "offensive thing" (also translated "abomination") as described in this verse. The Hebrew term for "offensive thing" (tô'ēbāh) is understood to be a relative term, which varies according to human perceptions. For example, in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that "any shepherd is an offensive thing to Egypt" (46:34); but, obviously, it is not an offensive thing to the Israelites. In light of the evidence at present, homosexuality cannot be said to be unnatural, nor is it an illness. Its prohibition in this verse explicitly applies only so long as it is perceived to be offensive, and therefore the current state of the evidence suggests that the period in which this commandment was binding has come to an end.

This was the first example of a pattern I would experience often with Steve. He would debate with intensity over any issue we were discussing, big or small. Sometimes we agreed; sometimes we didn't. When we didn't, I would find myself having to stand resilient, steadily holding my position, yielding not to his intensity but to the merits of the matter. Time and time again, I saw how Steve preferred that we come to a mutual resolution, marching forward together, rather than acting on an outcome he imposed. Years later Steve told me that he felt the business and strategic choices we made at Pixar were neither his nor mine but the product of just this process.

The Bible didn’t offer specific advice on the topic (abortion). Many evangelicals disapproved of “abortion-on-demand,” but not in the case of rape or incest, where fetal abnormalities were present, or when a woman’s life was at risk. In 1968, Christianity Today considered the question of therapeutic abortion—was it a blessing, or murder? They gave no definitive answer. As late as 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution urging states to expand access to abortion. But with the liberalization of abortion laws, and as abortion proponents began to frame the issue in terms of women controlling their reproduction, evangelicals started to reconsider their position. In 1973, Roe v. Wade—and the rising popularity of abortion in its wake—helped force the issue, but even then, evangelical mobilization was not immediate. Only in time, as abortion became more closely linked to feminism and the sexual revolution, did evangelicals begin to frame it not as a difficult moral choice, but rather as an assault on women’s God-given role, on the family, and on Christian America itself.

In the 1980s, a psychologist named James Prochaska developed the transtheoretical model of behavior change (TTM) based on research showing that people generally don’t “just do it,” as Nike (or a new year’s resolution) might have it, but instead tend to move through a series of sequential stages that look like this: Stage 1: Pre-contemplation Stage 2: Contemplation Stage 3: Preparation Stage 4: Action Stage 5: Maintenance So let’s say you want to make a change—exercise more, end a relationship, or even try therapy for the first time. Before you get to that point, you’re in the first stage, pre-contemplation, which is to say, you’re not even thinking about changing. Some therapists might liken this to denial, meaning that you don’t realize you might have a problem. When Charlotte first came to me, she presented herself as a social drinker; I realized that she was in the pre-contemplation stage as she talked about her mother’s tendency to self-medicate with alcohol but failed to see any connection to her own alcohol use. When I challenged her on this, she shut down, got irritated (“People my age go out and drink!”), or engaged in “what-aboutery,” the practice of diverting attention from the difficulty under discussion by raising a different problematic issue. (“Never mind X, what about Y?”)

Writing about conflict resolution and issues relating to identity, Barbour and Bourne (2020) have highlighted the usefulness of adapting the same questions to reflect on the future relationship. For example: How do we need to perceive ourselves as a team? How do we need to perceive the other team? How do we need the other team to perceive us? How do we need the other team to perceive themselves?

Simple organisational mechanisms, such as the creation of a sub committee of the EXCO body, under the authorisation of the CEO and chaired by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or the Chief Operating Officer (COO) — i.e., those who have the necessary organisational authority to resolve issues — should be established. Reporting into this group should be weekly and any variance to plan should be identified for resolution. There may be other organisational solutions but as a minimum, project reporting should be frequent and escalation for issue resolution should be integral to the process.

So there is an issue—or a dualistic aspect of our desire for human perfection or at least progress—that begs for resolution. But I learned years ago that in this kind of no-win philosophical situation, there is probably a higher perspective that dissolves, rather than resolves, the dissonance. In other words, being versus doing may not be the issue.

On the 18th of April, 1861, Governor Hicks issued a proclamation invoking them to preserve the peace, and said, "I assure the people that no troops will be sent from Maryland, unless it may be for the defense of the national capital." On the same day Mayor Brown, of the city of Baltimore, issued a proclamation in which, referring to that of the Governor above cited, he said, "I can not withhold my expression of satisfaction at his resolution that no troops shall be sent from Maryland to the soil of any other State.

Think of punching back and boundary-setting tactics as a flattened S-curve: you’ve accelerated up the slope of a negotiation and hit a plateau that requires you to temporarily stop any progress, escalate or de-escalate the issue acting as the obstacle, and eventually bring the relationship back to a state of rapport and get back on the slope. Taking a positive, constructive approach to conflict involves understanding that the bond is fundamental to any resolution.

a close-knit community intensely divided over issues of class, politics, sexuality, and race. In addition to the resolute warriors, the participants in the Colditz drama included communists, scientists, homosexuals, women, aesthetes and philistines, aristocrats, spies, workers, poets, and traitors. Many of these have hitherto been excluded from history because they did not fit the traditional mold of the white male Allied officer, dedicated to escaping. Moreover, roughly half the population of Colditz was German: the guards and their officers have also tended to be painted in one uniform color, yet this group also contained a rich cast of characters, including some men of culture and humanity far removed from the brutal Nazi stereotype.

Saving Saboteurs from Themselves John Henry, a senior management consultant with one of the world’s largest firms, advises a diverse portfolio of senior executive clients and boards. Though he’s found that the social dynamics impeding productive work are often the same wherever he goes, it can be difficult to broach the topic without raising his clients’ hackles. That’s why he keeps a copy of the CIA’s Simple Sabotage Field Manual, a set of guidelines devised by U.S. government officials to sabotage terrorist organizations from the inside, in his briefcase. Originally developed by the OSS during World War II, the Simple Sabotage Field Manual is a guide for, as the CIA puts it, “teaching people how to do their jobs badly.” Here’s a sample of some of the tactics our nation’s best intelligence officers recommend you use to undermine the operations and efficiency of a terrorist cell—or a typical American board meeting: When possible, refer all matters to committees for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible—no fewer than five people. Make speeches. Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Haggle over the precise wording of communications, minutes, resolutions. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to reopen the question of the advisability of that decision.

Those who seek in religion a solution to their problems are mistaken. Religion is not a set of solutions, but a set of problems. To the multiple issues that distress mankind, religion may offer some solutions, or rather, some promises of resolution, but it is not its proper function to provide us with a system that integrates our worries and satisfactorily orders them; rather, it is to awaken us to new presences and cast us among new problems. Religion is not a theory of the world, but an experience of it.

10 November You are a purposeful and ambitious person. From early on in life you know what you want to achieve and set your sights high. You have the ability to tackle difficult issues, and with your strong moral and physical courage, you usually succeed. If, however, you fail and get overlooked on your way to the top, your frustration can create health issues. You are adept at regeneration and can transform raw materials into ‘gold’, whether it’s a building, a company, or yourself. You are a pragmatic person but will not compromise your principles. This can lead to others seeing you as being inflexible. Relationships are serious for you, and you marry for love and financial security. Relaxation is vital for your emotional well-being. Your lack of flexibility would be remedied by a freestyle jazz dance form. STRENGTHS Aspiring and resolute WEEKNESSES Obstinate, materialistic MEDITATION A small mind is obstinate. A great mind can lead and be led.

I’ve always passionately believed in the power of the state to improve lives. Before my career in AI, I worked in government and the nonprofit sector. I helped start a charity telephone counseling service when I was nineteen, worked for the mayor of London, and co-founded a conflict resolution firm focused on multi-stakeholder negotiation. Working with public servants—people stretched thin and bone-tired, but forever in demand and doing heroic work for those who need it—was enough to show me what a disaster it would be if the state failed. However, my experience with local government, UN negotiations, and nonprofits also gave me invaluable firsthand knowledge of their limitations. They are often chronically mismanaged, bloated, and slow to act. One project I facilitated in 2009 at the Copenhagen climate negotiations involved convening hundreds of NGOs and scientific experts to align their negotiating positions. The idea was to present a coherent position to 192 squabbling countries at the main summit. Except we couldn’t get consensus on anything. For starters, no one could agree on the science, or the reality of what was happening on the ground. Priorities were scattered. There was no consensus on what would be effective, affordable, or even practical. Could you raise $10 billion to turn the Amazon into a national park to absorb CO2? How are you going to deal with the militias and bribes? Or maybe the answer was to reforest Norway, not Brazil, or was the solution to grow giant kelp farms instead? As soon as proposals were voiced, someone spoke up to poke holes in them. Every suggestion was a problem. We ended up with maximum divergence on all possible things. It was, in other words, politics as usual. And this involved people notionally on the “same team.” We hadn’t even gotten to the main event and the real horse-trading. At the Copenhagen summit a morass of states all had their own competing positions. Now pile on the raw emotion. Negotiators were trying to make decisions with hundreds of people in the room arguing and shouting and breaking off into groups, all while the clock was ticking, on both the summit and the planet. I was there trying to help facilitate the process, perhaps the most complex, high-stakes multiparty negotiation in human history, but from the start it looked almost impossible. Observing this, I realized we weren’t going to make sufficient progress fast enough. The timeline was too tight. The issues were too complex. Our institutions for addressing massive global problems were not fit for purpose.

Let me see if I can sum up very briefly the picture of the impact of the behavioral sciences upon the individual and upon society, as this impact is seen by Dr. Skinner, and implied in the attitudes and work of many, perhaps most, behavioral scientists. Behavioral science is clearly moving forward; the increasing power for control which it gives will be held by some one or some group; such an individual or group will surely choose the purposes or goals to be achieved; and most of us will then be increasingly controlled by means so subtle we will not even be aware of them as controls. Thus whether a council of wise psychologists (if this is not a contradiction in terms) or a Stalin or a Big Brother has the power, and whether the goal is happiness, or productivity, or resolution of the Oedipus complex, or submission, or love of Big Brother, we will inevitably find ourselves moving toward the chosen goal, and probably thinking that we ourselves desire it. Thus if this line of reasoning is correct, it appears that some form of completely controlled society - a Walden Two or a 1984 - is coming. The fact that it would surely arrive piecemeal rather than all at once, does not greatly change the fundamental issues. Man and his behavior would become a planned product of society.

The king does seal himself from his subjects and will not speak on such matters, but the Grudge price must be set and so it shall be. For the desecration of the Third Deep: one thousand urk heads. For the lost lives of two hundred and thirteen dawi in defiance of such barbarism: two thousand urk heads. For the abduction of Queen Morga, the lustre of Azul, and those others of King Kazador’s blood: their safe return with five thousand urk heads, or the restoration of their remains to the Ancestor Chambers of Karak Azul and no fewer than six thousand of the greenskin dead. Of Kazador’s son, the king does forbid our speaking beyond the pages of the kron. The prince is no longer of sound mind and the king does command his confinement until he can be found recovered. Let it be known that that for the brutal shaming of brave Prince Kazrik upon the very seat of the Iron Throne itself, King Kazador will accept no price. May this grudge against the urk of Black Crag stand forevermore. The greatly wronged king did then rouse from his grief to issue one mighty decree: half his wealth to any that returns his lost kin, and the pick of his own treasures to any that can avenge his son’s torture upon the squatter king. The thanes did each raise voice against so rash and unprecedented an oath, but the king, so mined of passion that even the wealth of Karak Azul could afford him no joy, was resolute. Thus is it recorded, and by Grimnir let it soon be done.

We know—intellectually—that confronting an issue is the only way to resolve it. But any resolution will disrupt the status quo. Given the choice between conflict and change on the one hand, and inertia on the other, the ostrich position can seem very attractive.

Ladejinsky was the most important adviser to the US government on agricultural issues in Asia. A naturalised American born in the Ukraine in 1899, who had fled the Russian Revolution, he recalled that: ‘I came to this [work] chiefly as a result of a lesson I learned from my experience before I left Russia in early 1921, namely that the communists would never have attained political power if they had not dealt with the land question resolutely, by turning the land over to the peasants.

It's important to remember that having a conversation about us (LGBT) without us will usually be a recycling or preconceived ideas and misconceptions. Can you imagine a group of male church leaders discussing the role of women in the church without females present. We would call that misogyny. Or church leadership discussing indigenous issues without ever consulting with indigenous people themselves to get insight into what their life experience is really all about. We would call that white supremacy/racism/elitism. The church has done a great deal of talking about us but rarely has spoken with us. So when church leaders discuss LGBT people, relationships and the community without speaking with or spending time getting to know LGBT people it does beg the question why. What is there to fear? Why the exclusion? Is this another evidence of homophobia? It's time for the church to invite LGBT people into the conversation. For some this is a conversation about their thoughts and beliefs but for us it is about who we are. You can ask questions. What was it like to sit in church and hear the word abomination to describe your orientation. What was it like to get to the point of coming out knowing you might be rejected by those you've loved and a church you've served.? How did you find resolution of your Christian beliefs and your sexuality? In listening you will learn. That's why it's so important to remember. No conversation about us, without us.

Endless presentation of conflict may interfere with genuine issue resolution.

For monitoring, alerting and trending you can use VictorOps, PagerDuty or Sensu. Logging provides an interface for analyzing various machine-generated data, so application-issues detection, as well as resolution, is easier to achieve. For logging, you can use Logotries, Sumo Logic, PaperTrail, Loggly, and Splunk.

The paper subsequently written by Amos with Redelmeier* showed that, in treating individual patients, the doctors behaved differently than they did when they designed ideal treatments for groups of patients with the same symptoms. They were likely to order additional tests to avoid raising troubling issues, and less likely to ask if patients wished to donate their organs if they died. In treating individual patients, doctors often did things they would disapprove of if they were creating a public policy to treat groups of patients with the exact same illness. Doctors all agreed that, if required by law, they should report the names of patients diagnosed with a seizure disorder, diabetes, or some other condition that might lead to loss of consciousness while driving a car. In practice, they didn’t do this—which could hardly be in the interest even of the individual patient in question. “This result is not just another manifestation of the conflict between the interests of the patient and the general interests of society,” Tversky and Redelmeier wrote, in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “The discrepancy between the aggregate and the individual perspectives also exists in the mind of the physician. The discrepancy seems to call for a resolution; it is odd to endorse a treatment in every case and reject it in general, or vice versa.” The point was not that the doctor was incorrectly or inadequately treating individual patients. The point was that he could not treat his patient one way, and groups of patients suffering from precisely the same problem in another way, and be doing his best in both cases. Both could not be right. And the point was obviously troubling—

Don't complain if the issue is complicated if it weren't complicated it would not be an issue.

ASK YOURSELF: How can you utilize active listening to provide sensational customer service? How will this help resolve complaints from unhappy customers? • Give them your full attention and listen without interruption or defensiveness. • Thank them for bringing the issue to your attention. • Take their concerns seriously and share their sense of urgency to resolve the problem quickly. • Ask questions and focus on what they are really saying. • Listen to their words, tone of voice, body language, and most importantly, how they feel. • Beware of making assumptions or rushing to conclusions before you hear their concern fully. • Explain, guide, educate, assist, and do what’s necessary to help them reach the resolution. • Treat them with respect and empathy. When you do an amazing job of resolving an unhappy customer’s problem, you may end up impressing them more than if the problem had never occurred. You may have just earned their loyalty . . . forever!

If, as children, we had to deny our true thoughts or feelings to be safe, as adults we are likely to continue to deny what’s true for us. Telling the truth feels very unsafe, a threat to survival. What a dilemma. Denying ourselves feels safer, but it obscures our sense of who we are. The safe route, however, violates an emotional boundary. What’s the way out of the dilemma? If boundary development was severely harmed when you were a child, therapy may be the most efficient route. When we don’t work ourselves free of the issues that got started when we were children, we are destined to relive them again and again. “Children who suffer trauma to core self and identity …,” writes Jane Middleton-Moz, “work toward resolution of that trauma and completion of development in adult life through repetition of the struggle with authority figures, in intimate relationships, through their own children or in therapy.”3

Organizer—Using work breakdown, estimating, and scheduling techniques, determines the complete work effort for the project, the proper sequence of the work activities, when the work will be accomplished, who will do the work, and how much the work will cost. • Point Man—Serves as the central point-of-contact for all oral and written project communications. • Quartermaster—Ensures the project has the resources, materials, and facilities its needs when it needs it. • Facilitator—Ensures that stakeholders and team members who come from different perspectives understand each other and work together to accomplish the project goals. • Persuader—Gains agreement from the stakeholders on project definition, success criteria, and approach; manages stakeholder expectations throughout the project while managing the competing demands of time, cost, and quality; and gains agreement on resource decisions and issue resolution action steps. • Problem Solver—Utilizes root-cause analysis process experience, prior project experiences, and technical knowledge to resolve unforeseen technical issues and to take any necessary corrective actions. • Umbrella—Works to shield the project team from the politics and “noise” surrounding the project, so they can stay focused and productive. • Coach—Determines and communicates the role each team member plays and the importance of that role to the project success, finds ways to motivate each team member, looks for ways to improve the skills of each team member, and provides constructive and timely feedback on individual performances. • Bulldog—Performs the follow-up to ensure that commitments are maintained, issues are resolved, and action items are completed. • Librarian—Manages all information, communications, and documentation involved in the project.