Conservative Conversation + Podcasts

Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!

Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. An intriguing quote

 

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one – Eric Hoffer

Offered without comment.

 

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Add Drugs and Keep Away from Sharp Objects: Institutionalizing Child Rearing

 

Parkland is just a few miles away from where I live. I have friends whose children went to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The shootings at this school, and for that matter every other school is tragic. Our instinct, of course, at such senseless violence against the most innocent of us brings up rage and a desire to make sense of it all. Some of us will point fingers at the tools of the massacre, and many of us will demonize those we already disagree with. This tragedy is big enough for us relive our worst nightmares. And the easy fix is to look to blame our favorite villains.

I recently spoke to a friend who is having trouble with her own son. Not Parkland-variety trouble, but trouble nevertheless. She is a single mother and a good person. She works hard to provide a loving environment to her only son, who is the center of her universe. For as long as I have known them, however, she has had challenges with her son. My own two kids, a few years older than hers, seem to never have the kinds of problems she has had. It would be easy to attribute this to one or two facts such as that mine grew-up in a two parent home and hers did not, but we all know that reality is not ever that simple.

Here are some of my observations of my friends “troubled” child.

From a very young age, he was diagnosed with ADHD and was put on a medication. Growing up in India, I never heard of ADHD. I would never consider medicating my children for a chronic, non-threatening condition at a young age without at least trying some alternatives. My kids were not without fault growing up, and it never occurred to me to “medicate” them to have peace of mind. If someone had suggested ADHD medication to me, I would certainly seek a second opinion. The number of children being raised with medication at young ages is alarming. The long-term effects of not teaching our children to cope with their emotions and just have them take pills for it is just bad and wrong. As I have seen my friends son grow older, his challenges have grown in size with him. Instead of working with her son, my friend has taken the easy, institutionalized way of just medicating him.

Also from a very young age, my friend’s son has been seeing a psychiatrist. Once again, I feel, perhaps wrongly, that this child is missing out on the one connection he needs — with the one parent he has. Once again I feel that my friend has found an institutional solution to an everyday problem. While I understand the need for psychiatry, this is not a child that has suffered any real trauma in life. He is an intelligent, middle-class kid having gone to private schools all his life, and having a pretty decent extended family and a stable household.

There are two modes of communication in my friend’s household. One is a totally loving, caring and vulnerable, and the other is speaking over each other, generally in higher decibels. There is not much adult conversation. There are threats and promises, no voluntary exchanges. On the few occasions when I’ve had the pleasure of taking care of this young man, I’ve noticed him “fake yelling” at me to get attention. When he discovered that all he needed to do was ask, the conversation became more normal, more civil.

Both his eating habits and his health are in the “needs improvement” column. He has always been overweight, and there is not a whole lot of nutrition in his daily intake.

This is a very sweet, intelligent, caring and capable young man, given to mood swings and some mildly violent behavior. He has trouble coping with things big and small. Coping, for right now, means taking a pill or paying someone to listen to your issues for him. I think much of his issues could very easily have been addressed by some real parenting, and instead what he has gotten is a lot of institutional help, and has been made to feel pretty “defective” by people with credentials and authority. This kid will never shoot up a school; however, it is going to take a long time for him to grow up and be stable emotionally.

The 19-year-old who shot up the school in Parkland also had coping issues. He did much worse, though. He killed 17 people in order to be heard. Sheriffs had been called to his home 39 times. While I don’t know enough about him to say that “all he needed was better parenting,” better parenting would have certainly prevented the killings. Institutional solutions are only so good. In each one of these cases, it seems to me, that there is a failure much sooner, much larger. While everyone “knew” he was trouble, all that was done was drugs, and the solution the morning after seems to be “keep him away from sharp object.”

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with this picture; with this attitude, this way of thinking. Children are gifts and must be treated as such. Institutional answers will not work. Our worlds should not be an asylum, where inmates are drugged and kept away from sharp objects.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Video of the Day: Coming Out in 2017

 

I have been watching Candace Owens’ story for a while. It is fascinating. She was harassed as a teenager, and immediately celebrated as “uber victim” — black, female, and bullied. However, when she tried to look deeper into the so-called anonymous white bullies (how can they be white and anonymous?), she was a (real) victim of character assassination by the media at large.

Her story is fascinating. This video is just a short example of her new found conservatism, activism, and humor.

What do you think?

P.S. if you are interested in her story, check out this video:

.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. On Sweden, Immigration, and Political Correctness

 

I recently encountered this video of Dave Rubin interviewing Dr. Tino Sanandaji, Kurdish-Swedish economist and author. Three things that struck me about the interview:

  1. The quality of talks on Dave’s show including the topics and the diversity is what I expected from NPR 15 or so years ago and never did get.
  2. I get tired of being quoted “Sweden” stats, and this is a great video that provides some honest insight into Sweden’s reality.
  3. Dr. Tino Sanandaji, much like most Rico readers, has never been to Mises or Property and Freedom Society conferences.

What do you think?

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. October 14th Quote of the day

 

I remember the days before I immigrated to the United States. I was 20, and I was the first person in my family to get a passport. The first to get a Visa. I received several admission letters from Universities in the United States. None of my family could help. The idea of leaving my homeland was a risky proposition – leaving a familiar environment with lots of people to depend on, and moving to a strange land where I knew no one was dangerous. My family had no clue why I would choose to leave the certainty of home and family.

I remember the phone call to my mother, the day my husband proposed. I was the first person in my family to not have an arranged marriage. I did not know my husband’s family. My family had not met him. The usual screening process of an arranged marriage had not taken place. The divorce rate in India is less than one percent, while it is close to fifty in the United States. I was risking a lot; the Indian mindset is that marriage is forever. I was entering into it with no guarantees. I was giving up a “sure thing” for a risky partnership.

When I speak about some of my anarcho-capitalist ideas, the most frequent questions I get are the “Hows”.

How would you police the streets? How would you run schools? How would you resolve disputes? How … ? How … ? How … ?

When I left my home, I had no idea how I was to live in the new country I was moving to. I was not moving “to” something; I was moving “from” something. The hows came much later – and yes, I made them (the hows) up as I went along. Not by having a pre-planned road-map for each particular “how”, but having standards of conduct and tolerance. I knew what I would put up with and what I would not. When I look back at my twenty four years of marriage, I see the same pattern. I am not with my husband because I had “entered into it with guarantees”. I created the life, in the country and with the man I chose. And I created the hows as they came. Not because I wanted safety and comfort, but because I wanted freedom.

Here is the quote that inspired this essay:

“Freedom is dangerous. Possibly crawling on all fours might be safer than standing upright, but we like the view better up there.” – Isabel Paterson

And here’s another one just for good measure:

“If there were just one gift you could choose, but nothing barred, what would it be? We wish you then your own wish; you name it. Ours is liberty, now and forever.” — Isabel Paterson

Isabel Paterson (1886–1961) was a journalist, author, political philosopher, and a leading literary critic of her day. Along with Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand, she is one of the three founding mothers of American libertarianism.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Save the Earth, Sign the Petition

 
Panasonic_aircon_CW-A56S2
There’s a chill wind blowing.

Air conditioning is worse than ISIS, says John Kerry. So, let’s all join together and sign the petition to remove air-conditioning from all state department buildings:

WHEREAS, Secretary of State John F. Kerry has suggested that air conditioners are as big a threat as ISIS, and … WHEREAS, it is the duty of our elected and appointed government officials to lead by example, … THEREFORE, we call upon the U.S. Department of State to remove air conditioning from all property that the Department owns, rents, or otherwise employs, including but not limited to embassies, consulates, office buildings, etc., all vehicles owned and/or operated by the Department, and any other property, real or movable, owned, rented, or otherwise employed by the Department.

I signed.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. RicochetFest: A Toast to Mama Toad

 

Untitled1So, I want to toast a Toad! Yes, that would be Mama Toad. She has six tadpoles (!), runs her own business, plays tennis (and wins), grows vegetables, shares her wisdom on Ricochet with us, and always has kind words for many of us.

She is a wordsmith extraordinaire who sees beauty and wisdom everywhere, even in illness and weeds. On neglecting her garden due to illness, she writes poetry about Sunflowers:

SunflowersLife is not predictable. Some of the things I thought I wanted very much have turned out to be worthless, and some things that seemed like burdens have turned out to be unexpected blessings.

Despite her busy schedule, she finds time, with her tadpoles, to be a pro-life activist. And she does it with grace and humility:

In New York City in 2010, a baby had a 41 percent chance of being aborted, the highest rate in the nation. In some zip codes within NYC, abortion rates were higher than live birth rates.

Tomorrow is “Lobby for Life Day” in New York’s capital. The Toads will be there, sans Papa Toad, to annoy our elected representatives. Please pray for us.

No description of Mama Toad would be complete without discussing her faith. She is a devout Catholic, and finds time to receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick — and to teach us a thing or two:

Today is the World Day of Prayer for the Sick, the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, whom Catholics believe appeared to the uneducated, poor peasant girl Bernadette Soubirous, in Lourdes, France, on this date in 1858. Today, pilgrims from all over the world gather to experience the healing God offers in this holy place.

This morning at Holy Mass, I was offered the opportunity to receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which filled me with a sense of peace and love. This sacrament involves prayer and anointing with sacred oils and salts. It grants forgiveness of sins, and spiritual and bodily healing.

Here is a link to the live webcam from Lourdes, where thousands are gathered to celebrate this feast today.

She sends fifteen year olds to college?

She embodies hope. Where does she find the time to do all the things she does?

I have been fishing most days since that first day I caught the fish. I’ve had a number of worms stolen (you can hear the fish laughing at you when you pull in your line, can’t you?) and last night nearly hooked something large, but I haven’t landed one.

So why do I keep fishing? The next cast, I feel sure, will land me the big one. Right?

And I have it on good authority that she is a climber.

When I grow up, I want to be Mama Toad. It is always a good day when Mama Toad comments on one of my post. Worth the price of admission, and more.

Your turn, Mama Toad!

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. My Kids are Better than Yours

 

hg_childrenart02Yesterday, I was having a conversation with my business partner. She was lamenting some challenges with her son. I jumped in with an almost unconscious, “My kids never … ” and, “When my kids were that age, I … ”

She responded, “Well that’s because you raised perfect kids.”

She was merely sharing her day’s challenges; and I was merely reminiscing about how I dealt with those situations. Nor was it her intention to whine, nor mine to gloat. But it sure seemed like it, on both sides. It got me thinking about my own child-rearing. Were my kids perfect? No. The difference, in my mind, is that I never wanted perfect children. If I’ve got any complaint, it’s that they don’t screw up enough.

I remember that my son, when he was still in elementary school, complained about the lunch I packed for him. The next morning, I got up and laid out all the ingredients for lunch, including snacks and drinks, and let him pack his own lunch. I didn’t do it in anger; I felt no guilt about not “packing a good lunch” — it was just process improvement. It took longer for the first few days, but the result was his packing his own lunch, and no complaints. The transaction had two participants; he was now old enough to have a say in the transaction; so I had him participate.

Too much thinking like an engineer, perhaps? When I took this step, the results showed up favorably in other things, too. When my kids wanted something changed, we talked it out and came to mutual agreements. In some cases, they didn’t want the responsibility and agreed to live with my choices; in others, they chose to do things their way. There were some mornings when my son would ask me to pack his lunch, and I would, but his sense of victimhood was gone.

Discussions like these actually made us communicate better. We always got consulted on things, because we were always supportive partners. Be it lunches, laundry, grades, hobbies, or things such as dating, drinking, drugs, etc.

I found a TED talk recently that introduces similar concepts:

My business partner expects her son to wake up one day and behave exactly as she wants him to. Not only make sandwiches the way she wants to, but like them. There is not much collaboration, and a lot of communication is in the form of yelling or expressing displeasure. There are no clear guidelines about actions, and no clear consequences to breaking rules. The son, a wonderful young lad, spent some time with me one weekend. When he wanted something, he would fake yell. We talked about it; by the end of the weekend, he was speaking to me normally.

My kids are not perfect children, and I am not a perfect parent. What we all are is responsible for our actions, having learned that every step of the way all through our lives, beginning in childhood. I feel the same way about most of the kids I encounter through my kids, because they all have families that support them to make the right choices and be responsible for their actions. The ones that did not had parenting issues — conscious or unconscious.

Believe me, if I can raise such kids, anyone can.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Fail Fast, Fail Often

 

shutterstock_24567307There is a paradigm in software (and other engineering disciplines, I suspect) called “fail fast.” On first encounter, it sounds odd. Why fail fast? Don’t we want to delay failures? Of course, the context drives the design; and far too often, in software, one deals with a increasingly complex system that comprises of many moving pieces. So, sometimes, if something fails, it’s much better to know about it sooner than later, so it can be addressed. Jim Shore wrote the best article on the advantages of failing fast to my knowledge, here. He says:

Some people recommend making your software robust by working around problems automatically. This results in the software “failing slowly.” The program continues working right after an error but fails in strange ways later on. A system that fails fast does exactly the opposite: when a problem occurs, it fails immediately and visibly. Failing fast is a nonintuitive technique: “failing immediately and visibly” sounds like it would make your software more fragile, but it actually makes it more robust. Bugs are easier to find and fix, so fewer go into production.

I find parallels between my software experiences and my life. I often notice what works in one paradigm has uses in others and — in many cases — I want my experiences to be “fail fast.” In other words, I want to know sooner rather than later if a new product will be successful, if a new business relationship will work, if a new idea will manifest, etc.

If you want to succeed, double your failure rate. – Thomas J. Watson

In business, it is better to know of upcoming failures early in order to avoid the loss of putting time and money into ideas that are likely to fail. In dating it’s better to dump a guy up front if he doesn’t want kids and you do. I’d rather know this sooner than later. How does this translate to actions? To me, it translates to more encounters, more interactions, more ventures, more things to “start.” Not all ventures will succeed, but in order to increase successes, there must be a higher rate of corresponding failures. And if we have to have failures, why not get them over with quickly?

In order to do so, however, we need to rethink failure as a feedback mechanism. We often make failure out to be a stigma. While failure is not optimal in all situations, sometimes failures are nothing but lessons in disguise. They can be feedback mechanism for actions; they tell us how to improve on things, how not to do something. How else can you discover a new passion without exposing yourself to failure? How many times have we started a project, failed, but discovered a new way to do things? We have all heard stories of Edison failing to invent the light bulb 1,000 times.

So, my friends, fail fast, fail often.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Time Preference, Civilization, and the State

 

shutterstock_125764985My husband has always admired certain things about Eastern cultures, particularly their view of time. The Chinese did not sell the island of Hong Kong to the United Kingdom, they leased it for 99 years. When the deal was made, Britain was a superpower and China was unstable, to say the least. A little over a century later, Great Britain is not so great anymore, and Hong Kong — with all its wealth and innovations — is a jewel in the crown of China. A long game, indeed.

The concept of time preference is an interesting one, and one given a lot of credence to in Austrian circles. The Wikipedia article explains the it as “the relative valuation placed on a good at an earlier date compared with its valuation at a later date. […] Someone with a high time preference is focused substantially on his well-being in the present … while someone with low time preference places more emphasis than average on their well-being in the further future.” So, a person with a high time preference wants instant gratification, while someone with a low time preference is willing to delay their pleasure.

There have been studies done on this, such as the one by Walter Mischel, the Stanford professor of psychology. Young kids were given the option of eating a marshmallow immediately or waiting (say, for 15 minutes) to get two marshmallows. Most kids ate the first marshmallow but about 30% were willing to wait to get two. In a follow-up, the researchers found a correlation between those who waited and high SAT scores in later life. Low time preference, then has its rewards.

As the Ludwig von Mises Institute notes:

Savings remain key to this process of capital construction, and it is the time preference, that manifests itself in savings. If people enjoy current consumption so much, that the promise of an increased future consumption cannot bring them to save (and sacrifice the current level of consumption), the production will not be improved.

When one talks of “the Protestant work ethic,” one is talking about a lower time preference. As a young person, just starting out, you may start with a high time preference and blow through a lot of money. But, as you accumulate wealth, your savings go up as your time preference goes down. The same goes for nations, says Hans Hermann Hoppe in Democracy: the God that Failed:

Hoppe argues that in general an advancing society will see a decline in time preference towards zero (but never reaching zero), because as individuals become wealthier they will require a lower portion of their wealth to satisfy present needs and thus have a higher supply to dedicate to future needs. Or in other words, as society advances on average individuals will have a higher savings rate.

In other words, the process of civilization is that of reducing the time preference of its people. As people become more civilized, their time preference reduces. Ditto for individuals.

This only holds true, though, to an extent. Imagine that in the experiment involving children who were given incentives to wait for additional marshmallow, there was a bully lurking around who ate their marshmallow before the rewards were handed out. Would any kid wait for the second marshmallow? This is where the state comes in. Only the state can disrupt the “lowering of time preference” in a country, by implementing policies that counteract it. Does a “stimulus” increase or decrease time preference? If you knew that, like in Argentina, the state would confiscate 401k savings, would you continue to save? If you knew that currencies were devaluating, would you save more or less? Does Social Security encourage savings? Does welfare? In Hoppe’s view, while the process of reducing time preference (saving, accumulating wealth) is “civilizing,” the actions and policies of the state are the opposite: i.e. “Un-civilizing”.

So where does this leave us? What is your time preference? While most of us are looking to save for retirement, the Chinese in the 1800s were looking 100 years in advance; not just at their lifetime but at that of their offspring. My husband is not (only) looking to save for a retirement, but looking to build a legacy. He wants to leave an impact not just on the next generation, but for many to come.

This is why I feel that while the next election has significant in our lives, what matters more the the next generation, and the next.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Conservatism, Libertarianism and Other Distinctions

 

I recently got back from attending the 10th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. It’s a libertarian organization of the anarcho-capitalist variety, started by Hans Hermann Hoppe (John Walker recently reviewed one of Hoppe’s books). I found the visit rejuvenating: rarely do I spend four or five days in the company of so many libertarians.

Even on Ricochet, there seems to be a constant conflict between conservative and libertarian ideology. What most people — including many of my fellow Ricochetti — would find most surprising about the conference is how conservative these anarcho-capitalists are. I present to you a speech from last year’s meeting by Dr. Gerard Casey, a Catholic, conservative anarchist, and a lovely and brilliant man. To me, it encapsulates why so many anarchists exist in the libertarian movement, and why they aspire to the same morals as most conservatives.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Agile Methodology, Libertarian Thought, and Other Distinctions

 

The methodology I use on a day-to-day basis for developing software is called Agile; SCRUM in my particular case. The developers of this methodology have a manifesto that goes like so:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools; Working software over comprehensive documentation; Customer collaboration over contract negotiation; Responding to change over following a plan.

The technique used involves iterative development, daily interactions, frequent deliveries, and easy opportunities to pivot. The result is better software, improved quality, and usable software.

This is very different than the old school, “waterfall” approach to software development. This approach, in my mind, is the way a lot of people think of any “work.” The origins, of course, come from other engineering disciplines and perhaps from architecture.

The thing is, software, much like life, is not like architecting a building or a piece of hardware. Biological systems are similar to software, as are markets. They come about by iterative methods, as does business. Post it notes would not have been one of 3M’s big money makers had they stuck to trying make a strong adhesive, and Play Doh would not be in the 100 toys of the century had it remained a wallpaper cleaner.

So, libertarians, like agile practitioners, have rules to play by, a list of “requirements” (liberty for instance), and an iterative plan of action. While some people are still looking of the definitive gospel on the “how to solve everything,” or contemplating the endless “what ifs,” the idea behind libertarian philosophy is liberty – and the plan is to sprint toward the goal, adjusting as we go, and achieving small steps along the way.

Agile is to software development as libertarian ideas are to politics. Who will build the roads? Let the free market decide.

I am a libertarian – I don’t have to have all the answers. (I forget who said it)

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Africa’s Emergence

 

In this Reason interview, Leon Louw, co-founder of the Free Market Foundation — a South African think tank — speaks on Africa, capitalism, and the elimination of poverty. A former communist, Louw is smart and funny and has been fighting poverty in Africa for decades.

Though Africa has made great strides in reducing poverty and the spread of AIDS, we tend to only hear about lion hunts, wars, and famines on the continent. Most of the improvements have come from allowing free markets to flourish through grassroots efforts and without foreign aid. Africa remains one of the most resource-rich and largest continents on earth, and yet least understood and exploited (in the good sense).

People like Leon Luow are making a difference by speaking out about what works, where, and how.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Ex-Im Bank Dead?

 

At midnight, there will no longer be an Ex-Im bank, channeling tax payer dollars to a handful of large corporations.

After 81 years of funneling taxpayer dollars to favored companies, projects, and geopolitical outcomes under the guise of advancing some vague conception of the “U.S. economic interest,” the Export-Import Bank of the United States will end its financing operations at midnight tonight.

….

It was won because of columnist/scholar Tim Carney’s persistence in focusing the public’s attention on the corruption bred of corporate welfare and because of the analytical contributions of Heritage’s Diane Katz, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ryan Young, and others who continued to make compelling arguments for shuttering the Bank, despite steep odds against that outcome.

Read more here.

There is some momentum to revive it.

Proponents of the Bank have been regrouping and strategizing to move legislation to reauthorize the Bank at the soonest possible chance. In fact the White House is hosting a conference call for the purpose of advancing that outcome.

I sure hope we killed it dead.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Telling People vs. Teaching Individuals

 

imageI have raised two kids, and I think I have done a pretty decent job at it too. While neither me nor my kids are perfect, I am proud of both of them and myself for a job well done. There is a lot of talk of “free range kids” and “unschooling” these days. While I am sympathetic to these ideas, I have to confess I don’t have a fancy name for how I raised my kids. I just winged it — to the best of my abilities — with a wonderful partner, of course.

Reflecting on it, though, I did accomplish something with my kids that I am generally opposed to: I told them how to live their lives, based on my morality. Someone recently told me that they didn’t “want to be yet another person telling people how to live their lives.” I don’t want to tell people how to live their lives — most of us don’t. However, I do expect certain conduct. I expect certain morality. I expect common decency. And I taught my kids the same.

So how did I achieve it? I think that there are two keys to this: how you look at the “telling” and how you look at the person being “told.” Let me explain.

When I was raising my children, I told them what to do and what not to do, but everything was within reason. Both hubby and I were always open for discussions, and there was never a “because I told you so” moment. There were also very clear and a small set of rules, with no ambiguity in the consequences of the rules being broken. And we taught by example. The kids, when young, revered us, and later respected us enough to learn from our example. In other words, teaching is best by example and best when clear and unambiguous. It never felt like I was “telling them how to live their lives” and my children concur.

The second is the person you are telling. Teaching is best when you have some relationship with the person. In the case of my kids, it was easy: I was vested in their well being as their mother. When you put a statement out there that “telling people how to live their lives” – there is no relationship. There is no love. I wrote a thread on why people don’t exist in my world. Teaching is best when there is a vested interest. If you are starting from a “them vs. us” context, “teaching” easily turns into “telling.” When the teacher and the student have a vested interest in each other, the teacher is less telling and more inspiring.

True, I don’t want to tell people how to live their lives. I would love individuals to be inspired to live great live, though.

I write here because I am inspired by a lot of you, and I think I inspire a few. I do the same with my non-profit.

Barkha Herman

Profile picture of Barkha Herman

@barkhaherman