Hasta La Gadget!

If you’re like me, you’ve probably met a few of these types of people in your life:

— Debbie Downer
— Paralysis by Analysis Al
— Egocentric Ed

If you’re like me, you’ve even been these people at certain times in your life. Debbie, Al and Ed will inevitably drop in on occasion, simply because we’re human. The challenge is in keeping their visits short.

Whether you’re the culprit or someone else is, remember there is one thing you can do to limit their visits: you get to choose their length of stay. Yes, you can choose how long they get to hang out with you. Why is this important? This is important if you want improvement in your life in the areas of relationships, business, wellness and income.

I must admit that once upon a time I sat on the opposite side of the fence — never a player, always in the trenches. In fact, just last week when I felt a little down, lonely and bored, Debbie invited herself to my pity party. We talked about mercury in retrograde, and how everyone was still in sleep mode from the holidays. We stewed in misery together while waiting for the rest of the world to recover. On top of that, inactivity begat boredom and that packed even more of a wallop.

I’ve also been known to get bitten by the Al bug. There are just times when even a crane would not be able to lift me out of bed. If there’s something I really don’t want to do or someone I really don’t want to call, I will find ways to avoid it – until I’m faced with the fact that it is going to, and will, catch up with me. Analysis leads to paralysis, which leads to procrastination, which leads to inertia, which leads to non-productivity, which leads to bills not getting paid. You get the picture. Not good.

The worst of the lot is Egocentric Ed — or, as I call him, the Big “e-No.” It’s the monster I labeled the “Trump Transgression” during my interview last fall with Casey Messer of KOB-TV’s Good Day New Mexico. The Big e-No shows up for no good reason when we least suspect or expect it, usually when threatened with a sense of loss of control or fear of looking dumb or dumber. The E-No shuts down all communication and begins to cause us to attract what we are striving to repel.

All of these are communication annihilators. When you shut down, you become a target for the three most common mistakes people make personally, and interpersonally. Here are the culprits and how to handle them:

Debbie Downer
Debbie Downer, like the “Eeyore” character from Winnie-the-Pooh, is the voice inside our head that chants “Woe is me.” The self-limiting beliefs and negative self-talk has to go. The instant you feel yourself getting in your own way, respond mindfully with something simple, like telling yourself you’re going to have a good day (no ifs, ands, or buts about it). Or give yourself some lip yoga and invert that frown. Needless to say, stay away from other Debbie Downers.

Paralysis by Analysis Al
Meet Paralysis by Analysis Al, the stifling alter ego who questions and over-thinks every minutiae. Al is his own worst enemy. What to do about him? Let him know that he’s a royal procrastinating pain-in-the-A disaster who’s his own worst enemy and spends way too much time living in the past. Remind him that his subconscious belief that something will or won’t happen because it did or didn’t happen before, is completely unfounded and he needs to get outside his head.

Egocentric Ed
We all have egos, but it’s the unhealthy one that occasionally rears its ugly head, giving us pause. The need to be right is a powerful emotion and has the potential to destroy everything in your life. Working towards building confidence is key, but when Ed shows up, be prepared with a technique you’ve developed to quell him before he becomes full-blown. Such a technique could be to breathe deeply and count to three, or walk away from the situation until you’ve had the time to remind yourself that nothing in this world, is worth your ire. Ask yourself in earnest, “Why do I have to be right anyway?” and you’ll be surprised by your answer.

The secret to communicating — and more importantly, connecting, is to open your heart up more. Be open to being vulnerable. When you are vulnerable, you allow yourself to be guided by spirit and not by “conditions,” which is what you have been led by previously. If you practice this on a daily basis, you will begin to see changes in yourself and changes in the quality of what will attract, as well as more like-mindedness and alignments in your life.

Last week, Google and Fidelity announced they were acquiring about 10 percent of Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies, “SpaceX.” This ten-figure investment (yep, that’s a Billion dollars with a capital “B”) signals a coming of age for New Space — a collection of innovative companies involved in commercializing spaceflight. Although the traditional investment community has long marginalized these firms, NASA backed the development of a competitive space launch market as the lead investor to the dismay of some traditionalists.

In the Silicon Valley venture capital model many risky startups are funded, spectacular disasters occur and only a fraction of the firms ever pay off. Securing significant investment from an outside firm or an initial public offering is the inflection point that differentiates losers from the winners in that world. This $ billion endorsement from a tech giant and a flagship investment fund has rocketed SpaceX over the hump and new space is now real business.

Since the Cold War, governments have controlled space launch technology, and they have also been the major consumers of launch services. The U.S. government is by far the largest potential customer for any global space launch provider. Agencies like NASA, the DOD, and NOAA are in continual need of launches in support of the valuable public services they provide to America and the world. These include things like NASA’s leading edge medical research; the military’s Global Positioning System that helps you find your way and find your smart phone; and the weather satellites that keep us dry, warn us of catastrophe and even make our farmers more productive.

Like any savvy business strategist, Elon Musk has aggressively pursued the government as an anchor client, while building a healthy manifest of domestic and international customers. SpaceX’s success with capturing government contracts and subsidies has been miniscule when compared to the decades of pork barrel largesse ladled out to the incestuous military-industrial-complex firms. Nevertheless, the spunky startup has been the target of frequent criticism over its participation in NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transport Services (COTS) and Commercial Crew (CCDev/CCiCap/CCtCap) programs. Ironically, these critiques have often come from pundits who nominally advocate free market principles, but are actually apologists for old-school aerospace cronyism. These fellows would apparently like to reestablish the government’s launch monopoly, continue to outsource our launches to Putin’s Russia and paint American flags onto Russian powered launch vehicles.

A classic source of such hubris has been Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. In a 2011 Forbes two-part attack entitled “What NASA Risks By Betting On Elon Musk’s SpaceX” and “The Case Against SpaceX, Part II” Thompson implied Musk was pandering to the Obama administration and portrayed the nation’s top entrepreneur as a fuzzy headed space guru promising a nirvana he won’t deliver. Thompson, whose organization is funded by military-industrial-complex competitors of SpaceX, described the disruptive new space company as an “unproven supplier with a risky business strategy” and stated that their Falcon 9 rocked has “major performance limitations compared with other launch vehicles.” Being a student of government, rather than a student of business, the good doctor interpreted the “$4 billion in corporate funds” that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin have poured into their old Delta and Atlas launch vehicles as a gauge of innovation. I see it as a whole lot of taxpayer dollars and a damning indictment of the economic inefficiency of the traditional cost plus defense-contracting model.

Well, the empirical evidence is now in. Since those pieces were published, we’ve seen a full dozen Falcon 9 launches go well, including six perfect supply runs to the Space Station. Curiously, that record of success didn’t put an end to Dr. Thompson’s nitpicking. A few months ago, he blasted off a piece entitled “When SpaceX Falters, Washington Looks The Other Way” which has since mysteriously vanished from the Internet.

However, now that SpaceX’s solid launch record has been crowned with a billion dollar affirmation from the most credible of private market sources it must be obvious to anyone that we aren’t talking Solyndra here. The global space economy is expanding and other new space firms, like XCOR Aerospace are regularly securing additional private funding. There have been and will be more bad days in space, because the job is hard to do; but the time has come to serve the critics of new space a big plate of crow – or, perhaps that should be falcon?

Greg Autry teaches technology entrepreneurship at The Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. He recently co-authored a report for the FAA Offices of Commercial Space Transportation entitled An Analysis of the Competitive Advantage of the United States of America in Commercial Human Orbital Spaceflight Markets. You can find him on Facebook.

Mahinda Rajapaksa’s defeat in Sri Lanka’s 2015 presidential election evoked, for me, some harrowing images and a glimpse at a path to justice.

An estimated 40,000 civilians died in the final weeks of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war, as government forces battled the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, commonly known as the Tamil Tigers. While no court has held a formal investigation, it is alleged that government forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 2010, London’s Channel 4 News produced an extraordinary investigative documentary into the killings, and asked me to comment on the international legal implications of the footage. The video was the most graphic evidence of war crimes that I had seen. It appeared to show Sri Lankan government troops executing civilians: a soldier casually shot a bound and blindfolded prisoner as he lay amongst the bodies of Tamil prisoners; another executed a prisoner with a close-range shot to the head. In another frame, a soldier sexually brutalized a woman naked and either dead or unconscious on the ground.

One year later, a UN panel of experts confirmed what I believe I witnessed in that video: undisputed evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. There are indications of torture, and of widespread indiscriminate shelling causing large numbers of civilian deaths. There are allegations that government forces used cluster bombs, white phosphorus, and other chemical substances against civilians. These and other findings constitute credible evidence that Sri Lankan government forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigation in Sri Lanka (OISL) is finalizing its report, due to be published in March. The report will undoubtedly mirror the earlier UN investigation.

While President, Mr. Rajapaksa consistently refused to investigate alleged atrocities committed by his soldiers, and he himself was immune under the Sri Lankan constitution. Also, under international law, a Head of State has immunity ratione personae, or personal immunity, from virtually all lawsuits in foreign national courts.

Personal immunity only applies, however, while a leader holds office. An ex-Head of State cannot claim personal immunity.

The 2015 presidential election result finally creates the opportunity to bring Mr. Rajapaksa to justice for atrocities committed by Sri Lankan government forces, its agents, and paramilitary forces.

Mr. Rajapaksa will argue that he retains immunity for acts carried out in the line of military duty as Head of State. This claim would be based on immunity ratione materiae, or functional immunity, which does not attach to the office of Head of State but to the type of acts performed in that capacity. The principle of functional immunity is based on the notion that a Head of State should not have to compromise his or her decisions for fear of criminal or civil legal action.

But, would such immunity cover alleged international crimes while performing official presidential duties? Emphatically, “No.”

Despite a few odd and contradictory court decisions, war crimes, genocide, torture, or crimes against humanity can never be seen as “official acts” and, consequently, should never be protected under functional immunity. It is unthinkable to imagine that such nefarious crimes might be considered protected acts carried out by a Head of State.

Unfortunately, the newly elected President, Maithripala Sirisena has indicated that Mr. Rajapaksa and other senior military commanders will not face domestic prosecution. President Sirisena indeed seems willing to broker a deal with the very leaders who committed crimes. Decisions like these are often premised on a misguided belief that, in post-conflict environments, it is necessary to choose between justice and peace. But this is a false choice. Sri Lanka must deal with the deep and languishing divisions created by past human right abuses. A policy of impunity does the opposite and would be a grave mistake. Impunity is pernicious and suggests that atrocities can be condoned. They cannot. How can there be reconciliation in a community where criminals retain political legitimacy and immunity from prosecution?

International pressure is vitally important in this instance, and should be guided by the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction is the principle etched in law that every country has an interest in and responsibility to bring to justice perpetrators of the most abhorrent crimes — no matter where those crimes were committed, and regardless of the perpetrators’ nationality. The underlying premise is that certain offenses strike at the core of mankind and betray the law of nations itself. International law neither negates nor limits the jurisdiction of states with respect to such crimes, but instead gives effect to state interdictions to bring the assailants to trial. Universal jurisdiction empowers domestic courts to enforce international law.

Enforcing international legal norms — absolutely fundamental to protecting human rights and supporting peace and stability — must be a priority for the international community. Leaders of all nations must reject impunity, embrace the principle of universal jurisdiction, and clearly state that the alleged perpetrators will be arrested if they cross international borders. Accountability for atrocities committed in Sri Lanka can offer the country a chance to heal. More important, it will give voice to more than 40,000 victims who perished, brutally, in those last weeks of war.

Dr. Mark Ellis is Executive Director of the International Bar Association, London

By Halina Newberry Grant/The Next Family

Like a lot of people, I had many opinions about parents and parenting before I became a mom. I had strong ideas about things like handling public tantrums, whether mommy groups were for me and whether I would return to work full time. I also knew that — like everything in life — there’s the plan and then there’s what happens, so I tried to remain open-minded, reminding myself that until I was really in it, I couldn’t possibly know how I would feel.

When I finally had my first kid a year and a half ago, I was surprised by a few things. For example, the suitcase I had packed for the hospital was completely unnecessary, because I labored at home and arrived at the hospital nine centimeters dilated, and four pushes later, was holding my girl. Also, I thought a book would help me get her to sleep. They didn’t. None of them did. Also, I expected her to cry a lot more — somehow, I have a very happy and easy-to-soothe babe (inexplicably, even when she wasn’t sleeping).

But the biggest surprise was a feeling that was triggered as soon as I had my daughter. This feeling eclipses every other change she has brought into my life; it has taken over my waking hours and kept me up at night. It preoccupies my mind when I’m on a date night or a girl’s night out, or working, or hiding in my room with my lap top, or talking on the phone, or doing dishes, or eating a meal. It is a feeling that I have never experienced to this magnitude.

It’s The Guilt.

I have tried to put a finger on the origins of The Guilt. I wasn’t raised with any kind of specific religious beliefs associated with guilt, so it wasn’t something that was taught to me. I have of course felt appropriate strong remorse for my part in something gone bad at times in my life. I have pangs of regret when I think of things I wish I had done differently. I have messed up, felt horrible and made amends as needed. But The Guilt is different from all of these feelings. It is much, much bigger.

The Guilt is different than Just Plain Guilt, the stuff my Jewish and Catholic friends bemoan. Just Plain Guilt is basically self-reproach; an internalized feeling that you have messed up, and you deserve to feel horrible for it. From what I can deduce, The Guilt is a miserable and complex brew of conflicting emotions that are on a long, low simmer on the back burner in our parental brains, which bubble over when triggered by events that are either real or imagined. And by the way, you would be hard pressed to find a mind more creative or imaginative than the mind of a parent.

I have put a dropper-full of The Guilt into a centrifuge to deduce its chemical makeup. Here are its ingredients: fear and worry.

Some actual thoughts I had the other day:

There’s a helicopter. Why is it in my neighborhood? I wonder what happened. Did grandma take her for a walk? Did they get hit by a car? Did grandma get hit by a car, and is my daughter crying over her injured body? Is grandma unconscious? My toddler can’t talk yet! Is there any way anyone would know who to call? Where are they taking my daughter!?

A parent’s brain becomes re-wired as soon as that precious and vulnerable little life is placed in their hands; it begins thinking like an expert terrorist, kidnapper, pedophile, deranged psychopath, and bully. Otherwise innocuous things — a shallow body of water like a puddle, a stray bit of string, and a square-inch of sponge — become potentially lethal in our minds. If we don’t think of the danger first, it will find us.

Fear and worry combined create a poisonous vapor that, when inhaled, is all-consuming. The result? Dread. Our brains become stuck on one track, repeating the thoughts, What am I messing up, and to what degree? and if something terrible happens while I’m gone, I won’t be there and she will suffer, it will be my fault because I left her.

Self-Loathing and Failure

I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m doing it all wrong. I don’t deserve this perfect being, and I am ruining her. Every decision I have made so far is leading to my ruining her life.

Sadness

I just really, really miss her. I think about her little face, and wonder what expressions it’s making right now. And she doesn’t know that, she only knows I’m not there.

Remorse

I know that it’s good for us to be apart. I know she thrives when socializing with other kids and developing relationships with family and close friends. But I feel horrible for abandoning her, and wonder if she internalizes it as “mama cares about something else more than me.” I feel horrible for doing this to her.

My rational brain knows better, but The Guilt is a powerful voice.

Jealousy

There, I said it. When I’m not with her and someone else is — be it a caregiver, grandparent, aunt, cousin or my husband — they’re getting to experience her in a way that I don’t, and they are seeing things that I’m missing, and it’s not fair.

Maybe nature wired the parent’s brain to experience The Guilt to help us to be good parents. Scientific studies show that a mother’s brain still carries cells of her offspring’s brains, so this means that even when we’re apart, we’re still connected. This also explains why when we’re separated it feels like something — an actual body part, an appendage — is missing from my body, like a phantom limb.

And here’s the thing: It SUCKS.

It feels heavy like lead and hammers constantly on my confidence like waves on rock.

I’m not fishing for approval or praise — the truth is, I know I am a great mom. I know it in my marrow. And I also know there is no such thing as perfection when it comes to parenting, and that’s not what I’m striving for anyway. Maybe it gets easier with time, or the weight of The Guilt becomes easier to bear as you have more kids, or maybe you just get used to the feeling as your new normal. And maybe it’s a testament to how carefree my life was before giving birth.

Any way I look at it, I accept it as a side effect of a love so big that it’s worth a shadowy, constant discomfort. And it’s in my job description to keep it contained enough that it doesn’t obstruct her growth and happiness.

Articles You Might Like:

How to Keep Your Child Safe Online

7 Things Your Kids Need Every Single Day

Working Mom Jargon 101

The anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act provides the nation with a good time to reflect on our priorities for women in the workplace. It is a celebration of our work to create a fairer workplace for women, and also a reminder of how far we have to go.

Women make up over half of our country’s population. That fact alone should make their success a major focus of Congress. The fact that currently women are 67% of the country’s minimum wage earners, and earn just 78 cents on the dollar to men nationwide should make them a priority.

Our most recent research into American women shows that women voters are still looking for policies that grow the economy and create good paying jobs, jobs that work for working women and their families.

American Women‘s latest survey found that when we described a comprehensive economic program designed to help women and families, including raising minimum wage, mandating paid sick leave, and creating a family and medical leave insurance fund, as well as Paycheck Fairness, 62% of the women surveyed supported it.

We’ve seen these policies work. SeaTac raised the minimum wage to cries of looming disaster but met those doubts with success. Neighboring Seattle is seeing similar results. Companies have seen similar successes. The Gap, which raised their minimum hourly wage to $10 last February saw job applications increase by at least 10 percent from the year before.

Congress taking steps to end gender discrimination in pay would be met with a positive reaction as well. A policy like the Paycheck Fairness Act is supported by a huge majority of women. While 83% of self-identified Democrats support a potential Paycheck Fairness Act, 64% of Independent women support it as well. Republican women also support passing paycheck fairness legislation by more than 2 to 1 – 56% to 24%.

Women also support policies that would help make their work lives work for their lives. Policies like requiring companies to provide paid sick days and paid family leave are critical because they make sure women are never forced to choose between losing their job and taking care of their children, a new baby, their families or themselves. And creating a family and medical leave insurance fund.

These policies help create the kind of good, good-paying jobs that women are looking for. They help women, their families, and their communities. They help create a stronger economy and a stronger country. This is what women are looking for from Washington.

What they are not looking for in Congress is for the GOP to focus on an extreme agenda, and they certainly were not looking for a bait and switch. Republicans knew that anti-women policies weren’t popular and tried to campaign on more moderate rhetoric, however when they got back to Washington they immediately prioritized them.

Women, both Democrats and Republicans, think it’s wrong for Congress to prioritize limiting access to abortion. Yet Republicans have spent the first weeks of the 114th Congress doing just that. Already they’ve introduced six bills to limit women’s access to reproductive health care.

For women, access to reproductive health care is an economic issue. The ability to choose if and when to start a family is an economic decision: Does the woman have a job with maternity leave? Does she have job security? Can the family afford to raise a child? Does my employer’s health coverage include birth control?

Women are looking for a fair shot at a good job that can support them and their families and give them a chance at a brighter future. We can’t ask women to lead when they can’t feed their families, worry about how to pay their debts, or wonder how they can afford child care. Our country is successful when women are successful. To that end, women are looking for a renewed focus on the policies that matter to them in the new Congress, and this research should be a clarion call to the President and to the Congress as they continue to lay out their plans for the future.