Shunning Cuba and Venezuela?

Why has China snubbed Cuba and Venezuela?
Jun 6th 2013, 23:50 by H.T. | MEXICO CITY

XI JINPING’S first visit to Latin America and the Caribbean as China’s president, from May 31st to June 6th, took him tantalisingly close to Beijing’s strongest ideological allies in the region, Cuba and Venezuela. Yet he steered clear of both of them. Instead of visiting Cuba, as his predecessor Hu Jintao did on his first presidential trip to the region, Mr Xi stopped off in an English-speaking Caribbean nation, Trinidad and Tobago, which (as if to rub it in) is only a short hop from Caracas. He then travelled to Costa Rica and Mexico (pictured)—two countries that are at least as much a part of America’s orbit as Cuba and Venezuela are part of the “Beijing Consensus”. Why this snub to two friendly nations that have been lavished with Chinese largesse in recent years, especially at a time when both are struggling to come to terms with the death in March of Hugo Chávez, the Cuba- and China-loving Venezuelan leader?

The short answer is: for simplicity’s sake. Visits to Cuba and Venezuela might well have raised distracting questions when Mr Xi meets Barack Obama in Southern California on June 7th, and neither socialist government was likely to express publicly any offence at being left off the itinerary. The beauty of having a chequebook as thick as China’s is that if you give your friends the cold shoulder, you can always mollify them with money. That may be why, on June 6th, Venezuela’s oil minister announced that he had secured an extra $4 billion from China to drill for oil, in addition to $35 billion already provided by Beijing. Not quite in the same league, but significant nonetheless, the Havana Times reported this week that China was also planning to invest in Cuban golf courses, the island’s latest fad.

However, as our story on Mr Xi’s visit to Latin America points out, he may have had other reasons for picking the destinations that he did. Firstly, he may be trying to respond to Mr Obama’s “pivot” to Asia by showing that China is developing its own sphere of influence in America’s backyard. China’s business relationship with Latin America gets less attention than its dealings with Africa, but in terms of investment, it is much bigger. According to Enrique Dussel, a China expert at Mexico’s National Autonomous University, Latin America and the Caribbean were collectively the second largest recipient of Chinese foreign direct investment between 2000-2011, after Hong Kong. In terms of funding, Kevin Gallagher of Boston University says China has provided more loans to Latin America since 2005 than the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank combined. The visits to Mexico and Costa Rica may also represent a pivot of sorts in terms of the type of economic relationship China has with Latin America. Up until now, China has hoovered up the region’s commodities, importing soya, copper, iron, oil and other raw materials, particularly from Brazil, Chile and Venezuela, while flooding the region with its manufactured goods. But its relations with Mexico, a rival in low-cost manufacturing, have been frosty: China accounts for only about 0.05% of Mexican foreign direct investment, and it exports ten times as much to Mexico as it imports.

But as wages in China have increased and high energy prices have raised the cost of shipping goods from China to America, Beijing may be looking for bases such as Mexico and Costa Rica where it can relocate Chinese factories and benefit from free-trade agreements with the United States. This idea thrills the Mexican government, but does it pose an immediate threat to Venezuela and Cuba? Probably not: China will continue to need their staunch ideological support over issues like Taiwan, for one thing. But it does suggest that China’s economic interest in the region is broadening, especially along the Pacific coast. If that proves to be the case, Cuba and Venezuela, deprived of the charismatic Chávez to court Beijing on their behalf, will have to work hard to stay relevant.

Dealing with Putin

Dealing with Russia
Tougher love needed

When it comes to understanding Vladimir Putin, trust Angela Merkel’s instincts not Barack Obama’s
Jun 1st 2013 |From the print edition

IN THE year since Vladimir Putin returned to the Kremlin as president his rule has become increasingly repressive. He has harassed or shut down non-governmental organisations, put opposition leaders on trial and had pop-star protesters jailed on flimsy charges. Corruption is entrenched, the judiciary has been nobbled and critics are routinely branded as treacherous foreign agents. The evidence is clear; the question is how the West should respond.

So far, there has been a curious inversion of past practice. European countries, led by Germany, which is Russia’s biggest trading partner, have long been in favour of a soft approach. Their argument used to be that stability mattered more than democracy in such a vast and unruly country, that Europe needed Russian oil and gas, and that criticism from outside was unlikely to make much difference. The Americans, in contrast, mostly preferred a tougher stance, insisting that the West should support human rights and democracy everywhere and firmly denouncing the slide towards autocracy. These days, however, Barack Obama supports the pragmatic approach that underpinned the “reset” of his first term, arguing that he needs Russian help in the fight against terrorism, for arms-control treaties and in such trouble spots as the Middle East. It is Germany’s Angela Merkel who is most outspoken in attacking Mr Putin’s repression.

Mrs Merkel is right and Mr Obama is wrong, for three reasons. First, holding back criticism may not in fact make Mr Putin any more helpful. It is true that the Kremlin can lash out in retaliation in specific cases or against particular countries. But more broadly Russia, like the West, pursues what it sees as its own interests. So it will co-operate on international terrorism, for instance over the Boston bombers who came from the north Caucasus, and it may do so over arms control. But it will not over Syria, as it showed yet again this week by promising to ship sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Bashar Assad’s vile regime. Indeed, Mr Putin’s rule at home has become increasingly bound up with his confrontational attitude towards the West in Syria and elsewhere (see article).

The second reason is that criticism can count for more than sceptics believe. Mr Putin and his cronies are not suddenly going to embrace liberal democracy. But they are conscious of their image (and assets) abroad and they like to be judged by Western standards. Mr Putin values his country’s international standing. Russia will chair the G8 next year and he plans a summit in Sochi. He badly wants the Sochi winter Olympics to be a success. He may not change in response to foreign critics but he is not impervious to them. Nor is his position at home invulnerable, given Russia’s growing economic problems and the slide in its oil and gas revenues.

How the West can win
The third and most important reason is that the West should defend its democratic values in order to lend support to the opposition to Mr Putin. Opponents of autocratic governments everywhere are disheartened if they see the West pulling its punches or even embracing dictatorships. Those who prefer business to politics often favour engagement with such regimes and oppose any strident criticism, on the basis that nothing is ever likely to change. Yet recent experience in places as far apart as the Arab world and Myanmar argues against such pessimism. One day change will come to Russia—as it will to Syria. When that happens, among the losers will be those who appeased or backed the dictators. It is far better for Mr Obama to identify himself strongly with those who embrace the West’s values, in Russia as everywhere else.

From the print edition: Leaders

Sound Advice

Thinking of Running an Open Innovation Contest? Think Again.
Open competitions can help find an optimal solution to a well-understood problem, but they are a poor way to innovate.

Open innovation contests are gaining popularity with companies. The thinking is that since not all the smart people work for your company, and technology is developing so rapidly, why not hold a contest to get the best minds competing to innovate for you? While 99 percent of the entries will fail, those entries aren’t on your company’s income statement. And when that 1 percent succeeds by pulling off a true breakthrough, then your company will be the big winner.

It sounds really good, and in certain contexts the approach does work. Yet, when it comes to real innovation, something essentially necessary is missing…

It is this: real innovation is always the outcome of ongoing discourse among a small group of innovators who truly understand the importance of what they’re working on. No matter where we look, from the American Revolution to the digital revolution, it’s always a small group of obsessed individuals who know and talk to each other that are responsible for big innovations. As John Stuart Mill observed: “Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small minority.”

Innovators are not obsessed with proving they’re smart. Rather, they’re obsessed with bringing to life paradigms that will empower human beings. Nicholas Negroponte said of the founding of MIT Media Lab: “We came together in the early 1980s as a counterculture to the establishment of computer science, which at the time was still preoccupied with programming languages, operating systems, network protocols, and system architectures. The common bond was not a discipline, but a belief that computers would dramatically alter and affect the quality of life through their ubiquity, not just in science, but in every aspect of living.” It’s that belief in the paradigm of “being digital” that motivated the researchers of MIT Media Lab to give us innovations like E-Ink, FabLab, and the touchscreen. These didn’t come from one-off contests.

True, contests have been associated with big breakthroughs. But, such contests have been embedded in already existing discourses. Both the British Board of Longitude’s contest, which, in 1714, promised a 20,000-pound prize to whoever could solve the problem of determining longitude at sea, and, more recently, DARPA’s 2007 Urban Challenge, which promised $2 million to any team that could build a driverless vehicle, are associated with breakthroughs. But both contests were episodes in already ongoing discourses. The first began in 1502, with Amerigo Vespucci’s letter Mundus Novus (“new world”); the second, some say, began with Leonardo da Vinci, and can be traced in modern times to the General Motors “Futurama” exhibit at the 1939 World’s Fair, where the automaker envisioned “abundant sunshine, fresh air (and) fine green parkways” upon which cars would drive themselves.

In each case, the discourse that produced Harrison’s H5 marine chronometer, and Tartan Racing’s driverless car “Boss,” involved a small community of brilliant innovators, including personalities like Isaac Newton and Edmond Halley, and more recently, Red Whittaker and Chris Urmson. Just as important, cash grants to bring about these inventions were made by both the Board of Longitude and DARPA to the few contestants that “got” the paradigms of empowerment: safe travel on the high seas, and a world where driving is less dangerous and inconvenient. Innovation is no “free lunch.”

Contests sound easy. But without understanding deeply and embracing a paradigm of empowerment, how can a company pick winners? The Edison Company never ran a contest to invent a car for the great multitude. But, if they had, Henry Ford would not have won it. Before founding the Ford Motor Company, Ford was forced to leave the Edison Company as its chief engineer for refusing to abandon his experiments on a gasoline engine for automobiles. Its president told him: “Electricity, yes, that’s the coming thing. But, gas—no.” Like most people at that time, the president of Edison Company believed the car for the masses would be an electric one. He didn’t “get” the paradigm of mobility that Ford did—that of granting to average rural families, in Ford’s words, “hours of pleasure in God’s great open spaces.” So, the president of Edison Company didn’t realize the problems that needed to be solved: a car has to have long range and high power density. To this day, these technical hurdles still daunt developers of electric vehicles.

Executives shouldn’t begin by thinking that all the smart people work for someone else. Instead, they should begin by asking: what is the paradigm that is leading my company? Risk-averse companies don’t lead—and they do not lead because they do not understand the paradigm that is driving the demand for their products—or for someone else’s product. Steve Jobs understood very well the paradigm of the digital revolution. Risk-averse Kodak had very smart people who invented the first digital camera—and did nothing with it because they didn’t “get” a paradigm that made their photographic film irrelevant.

The Model T and iPhone weren’t the outcomes of contests, and genuinely world-changing innovations won’t come from competitions run by risk-averse firms. Instead, executives should seek out those discourses that are like hurricanes, whose eyes are paradigms, which will either propel or destroy them. They will do far better by embracing the discourse of the 1 percent that “get” the paradigms of empowerment, and with them, risk creating the future, than betting their futures on entries to solve problems that may not matter from a crowd of contestants they don’t even know.

Randall S. Wright is senior liaison officer with MIT’s Office of Corporate Relations. He has more than 25 years of experience advising senior executives of Fortune 500 and FTSE 100 firms on innovating with MIT. His articles on innovation have appeared in MIT Sloan Management Review.

2

Scary Thought

Is PTSD Contagious?
It’s rampant among returning vets—and now their spouses and kids are starting to show the same symptoms.

—By Mac McClelland | January/February 2013 Issue
220

BRANNAN VINES HAS NEVER BEEN to war. But she’s got a warrior’s skills: hyperawareness, hypervigilance, adrenaline-sharp quick-scanning for danger, for triggers. Super stimuli-sensitive. Skills on the battlefield, crazy-person behavior in a drug store, where she was recently standing behind a sweet old lady counting out change when she suddenly became so furious her ears literally started ringing. Being too cognizant of every sound—every coin dropping an echo—she explodes inwardly, fury flash-incinerating any normal tolerance for a fellow patron with a couple of dollars in quarters and dimes. Her nose starts running she’s so pissed, and there she is standing in a CVS, snotty and deaf with rage, like some kind of maniac, because a tiny elderly woman needs an extra minute to pay for her dish soap or whatever.

AUDIO: Click on the button below to hear Mac McClelland read this story—or, download our free podcast.
Brannan Vines has never been to war, but her husband, Caleb, was sent to Iraq twice, where he served in the infantry as a designated marksman. He’s one of 103,200, or 228,875, or 336,000 Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and came back with PTSD, depending on whom you ask, and one of 115,000 to 456,000 with traumatic brain injury. It’s hard to say, with the lack of definitive tests for the former, undertesting for the latter, underreporting, under or over-misdiagnosing of both. And as slippery as all that is, even less understood is the collateral damage, to families, to schools, to society—emotional and fiscal costs borne long after the war is over.

Like Brannan’s symptoms. Hypervigilance sounds innocuous, but it is in fact exhaustingly distressing, a conditioned response to life-threatening situations. Imagine there’s a murderer in your house. And it is dark outside, and the electricity is out. Imagine your nervous system spiking, readying you as you feel your way along the walls, the sensitivity of your hearing, the tautness in your muscles, the alertness shooting around inside your skull. And then imagine feeling like that all the time.

Vets, PTSD, and Kids: A Google+ Hangout with Mac McClelland and Military Moms [VIDEO]
Charts: Suicide, PTSD and the Psychological Toll on America’s Vets
Caleb has been home since 2006, way more than enough time for Brannan to catch his symptoms. The house, in a subdivision a little removed from one of many shopping centers in a small town in the southwest corner of Alabama, is often quiet as a morgue. You can hear the cat padding around. The air conditioner whooshes, a clock ticks. When a sound erupts—Caleb screaming at Brannan because she’s just woken him up from a nightmare, after making sure she’s at least an arm’s length away in case he wakes up swinging—the ensuing silence seems even denser. Even when everyone’s in the family room watching TV, it’s only connected to Netflix and not to cable, since news is often a trigger. Brannan and Caleb can be tense with their own agitation, and tense about each other’s. Their German shepherd, a service dog trained to help veterans with PTSD, is ready to alert Caleb to triggers by barking, or to calm him by jumping onto his chest. This PTSD picture is worse than some, but much better, Brannan knows, than those that have devolved into drug addiction and rehab stints and relapses. She has not, unlike military wives she advises, ever been beat up. Nor jumped out of her own bed when she got touched in the middle of the night for fear of being raped, again. Still.

“Sometimes I can’t do the laundry,” Brannan explains, reclining on her couch. “And it’s not like, ‘Oh, I’m too tired to do the laundry,’ it’s like, ‘Um, I don’t understand how to turn the washing machine on.’ I am looking at a washing machine and a pile of laundry and my brain is literally overwhelmed by trying to figure out how to reconcile them.” She sounds like she might start crying, not because she is, but because that’s how she always sounds, like she’s talking from the top of a clenched throat, tonally shaky and thin. She looks relaxed for the moment, though, the sun shining through the windows onto her face in this lovely leafy suburb. We raise the blinds in the afternoons, but only if we are alone. When we hear Caleb pulling back in the driveway, we jump up and grab their strings, plunging the living room back into its usual necessary darkness.

THE VINESES’ WEDDING ALBUM is gorgeous, leather-bound, older and dustier than you might expect given their youth. Brannan is 32 now, but in her portraits with the big white dress and lacy veil she’s not even old enough to drink. There were 500 people at the ceremony. Even the mayor was there. And there’s Caleb, slim, in a tux, three years older than Brannan at 22, in every single picture just about the smilingest motherfucker you’ve ever seen, in a shy kind of way.

Now, he’s rounder, heavier, bearded, and long-haired, obviously tough even if he weren’t prone to wearing a COMBAT INFANTRYMAN cap, but still not the guy you picture when you see his “Disabled Veteran” license plates. Not the old ‘Nam guy with a limp, or maybe the young legless Iraq survivor, that you’d expect.

It’s kind of hard to understand Caleb’s injuries. Even doctors can’t say for sure exactly why he has flashbacks, why he could be standing in a bookstore when all of a sudden he’s sure he’s in Ramadi, the pictures in his brain disorienting him among the stacks, which could turn from stacks to rows of rooftops that need to be scanned for snipers. Sometimes he starts yelling, and often he doesn’t remember anything about it later. They don’t know exactly why it comes to him in dreams, and why especially that time he picked up the pieces of Baghdad bombing victims and that lady who appeared to have thrown herself on top of her child to save him only to find the child dead underneath torments him when he’s sleeping, and sometimes awake. They don’t know why some other guys in his unit who did and saw the same stuff that Caleb did and saw are fine but Caleb is so sensitive to light, why he can’t just watch the news like a regular person without feeling as if he might catch fire. Some hypotheses for why PTSD only tortures some trauma victims blame it on unhappily coded proteins, or a misbehaving amygdala. Family history, or maybe previous trauma.

Whatever is happening to Caleb, it’s as old as war itself. The ancient historian Herodotus told of Greeks being honorably dismissed for being “out of heart” and “unwilling to encounter danger.” Civil War doctors, who couldn’t think of any other thing that might be unpleasant about fighting the Civil War but homesickness, diagnosed thousands with “nostalgia.” Later, it was deemed “irritable heart.” In World War I it was called “shell shock.” In World War II, “battle fatigue.” It wasn’t an official diagnosis until 1980, when Post Traumatic Stress Disorder made its debut in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, uniting a flood of Vietnam vets suffering persistent psych issues with traumatized civilians—previously assigned labels like “accident neurosis” and “post-rape syndrome”—onto the same page of the DSM-III.

But whatever people have called it, they haven’t been likely to grasp or respect it. In 1943, when Lt. General George S. Patton met an American soldier at an Italian hospital recovering from “nerves,” Patton slapped him and called him a coward. In 2006, the British Ministry of Defence pardoned some 300 soldiers who had been executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, having concluded that many were probably just crippled by PTSD.

Granted, diagnosing PTSD is a tricky thing. The result of a malfunctioning nervous system that fails to normalize after trauma and instead perpetrates memories and misfires life-or-death stress for no practical reason, it comes in a couple of varieties, various complexities, has causes ranging from one lightning-fast event to drawn-out terrors or patterns of abuse—in soldiers, the incidence of PTSD goes up with the number of tours and amount of combat experienced. As with most psychiatric diagnoses, there are no measurable objective biological characteristics to identify it. Doctors have to go on hunches and symptomology rather than definitive evidence. And the fact that the science hasn’t fully caught up with the suffering, that Caleb can’t point to something provably, biologically ruining his life, just makes him feel worse. It’s invalidating. Even if something is certainly wrong—even if a couple of times he has inadvisably downed his medication with a lot of booze, admitting to Brannan that he doesn’t care if he dies; even if he once came closer to striking her than she ever, ever, ever could have imagined before he went to war­—Caleb knows that a person whose problem is essentially that he can’t adapt to peacetime Alabama sounds, to many, like a pussy.

“Somebody at the VA told me, ‘Kids in Congo and Uganda don’t have PTSD,'” Caleb tells me angrily one day.

You can’t see Caleb’s other wound, either. It’s called traumatic brain injury, or TBI, from multiple concussions. In two tours, he was in at least 20 explosions—IEDs, vehicle-borne IEDs, RPGs. In one of them, when a mortar or grenade hit just behind him, he was thrown headfirst through a metal gate and into a courtyard. His buddies dragged him into a corner, where he was in and out of consciousness while the firefight continued, for hours. When it was over, they gave him an IV and some Motrin, and within hours, he was back on patrol. The Army has rules about that sort of thing now. Now if you’re knocked unconscious, or have double vision, or exhibit other signs of a brain injury, you have to rest for a certain period of time, but that rule didn’t go into effect in theater until 2010, after Caleb was already out of the service. He wasn’t diagnosed for years after he got back, despite Brannan’s frantic phone calls to the VA begging for tests, since her husband, formerly a high-scoring civil-engineering major at Auburn University, was asking her to help him do simple division. When Caleb was finally screened for the severity of his TBI, Brannan says he got the second-worst score in the whole 18-county Gulf Coast VA system, which serves more than 50,000 veterans. But there’s still a lot about brain damage that doctors, much less civilians, don’t understand.

“I guess we’re just used to dealing with people with more severe injuries,” a VA nurse once told Brannan upon seeing Caleb.

Medical journals note some family members of vets exhibit symptoms “almost identical to PTSD.” Except the “T” is their loved one’s behavior.
Unlike PTSD, secondary traumatic stress doesn’t have its own entry in the DSM, though the manual does take note of it, as do many peer-reviewed studies and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Symptoms start at depression and alienation, including the “compassion fatigue” suffered by social workers and trauma counselors. But some spouses and loved ones suffer symptoms that are, as one medical journal puts it, “almost identical to PTSD except that indirect exposure to the traumatic event through close contact with the primary victim of trauma” is the catalyst. Basically your spouse’s behavior becomes the “T” in your own PTSD. If sympathy for Caleb is a little lacking, you can imagine what little understanding exists for Brannan.

Secondary traumatic stress has been documented in the spouses of veterans with PTSD from Vietnam. And the spouses of Israeli veterans with PTSD, and Dutch veterans with PTSD. In one study, the incidence of secondary trauma in wives of Croatian war vets with PTSD was 30 percent. In another study there, it was 39 percent. “Trauma is really not something that happens to an individual,” says Robert Motta, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at Hofstra University who wrote a few of the many medical-journal articles about secondary trauma in Vietnam vets’ families. “Trauma is a contagious disease; it affects everyone that has close contact with a traumatized person” in some form or another, to varying degrees and for different lengths of time. “Everyone” includes children. Which is something Brannan and Caleb lose not a little sleep over, since they’ve got a six-year-old in the house.

KATIE* VINES, THE FIRST TIME I meet her, is in trouble. Not that you’d know it to look at her, bounding up to the car, blondish bob flying as she sprints from her kindergarten class, nice round face like her daddy’s. No one’s the wiser until she cheerfully hands her mother a folder from the backseat she’s hopped into. It contains notes about the day from her teacher.

“It says here,” Brannan says, her eyes narrowing incredulously, “that you spit on somebody today.”

“Yes ma’am,” Katie admits, lowering her voice and her eyes guiltily.

“Katie Vines.” Brannan was born here in Alabama, so that’s drawled. “Wah did you do that?”

Her schoolmate said something mean. Maybe. Katie doesn’t sound sure, or like she remembers exactly. One thing she’s positive of: “She just made me…so. MAD.” Brannan asks Katie to name some of the alternatives. “Walk away, get the teacher, yes ma’am, no ma’am,” Katie dutifully responds to the prompts. She looks disappointed in herself. Her eyebrows are heavily creased when she shakes her head and says quietly again, “I was so mad.”

Brannan and Katie’s teacher have conferenced about Katie’s behavior many times. Brannan’s not surprised she’s picked up overreacting and yelling—you don’t have to be at the Vines residence for too long to hear Caleb hollering from his room, where he sometimes hides for 18, 20 hours at a time, and certainly not if you’re there during his nightmares, which Katie is. “She mirrors…she just mirrors” her dad’s behavior, Brannan says. She can’t get Katie to stop picking at the sores on her legs, sores she digs into her own skin with anxious little fingers. She is not, according to Brannan, “a normal, carefree six-year-old.”

Different studies of the children of American World War II, Korea, and Vietnam vets with PTSD have turned up different results: “45 percent” of kids in one small study “reported significant PTSD signs”; “83 percent reported elevated hostility scores.” Other studies have found a “higher rate of psychiatric treatment”; “more dysfunctional social and emotional behavior”; “difficulties in establishing and maintaining friendships.” The symptoms were similar to what those researchers had seen before, in perhaps the most analyzed and important population in the field of secondary traumatization: the children of Holocaust survivors.

But then in 2003, a team of Dutch and Israeli researchers meta-analyzed 31 of the papers on Holocaust survivors’ families, and concluded—to the fury of some clinicians—that when more rigorous controls were applied, there was no evidence for the intergenerational transmission of trauma.

I asked the lead scientist, Marinus van IJzendoorn of Leiden University, what might account for other studies’ finding of secondary trauma in vets’ spouses or kids. He said he’s never analyzed those studies, and wonders if the results would hold up to a meta-analysis. But: “Suppose that there is a second-generation effect in veterans, there are a few differences that are quite significant” from children of Holocaust survivors that “might account for difference in coping mechanisms and resources.” Holocaust survivors “had more resources and networks, wider family members and community to support them to adapt to their new circumstances after a war.” They were not, in other words, expected to man up and get over it.

Charts: Suicide, PTSD, and the Psychological Toll on America’s Vets
We await the results of the 20-year, 10,000-family-strong study of impacts on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans’ kin, the largest of its kind ever conducted, that just got under way. Meanwhile, René Robi­chaux, social-work programs manager for US Army Medical Command, concedes that “in a family system, every member of that system is going to be impacted, most often in a negative way, by mental-health issues.” That was the impetus for the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, which since 2005 has added 70 therapists to military installations around the country. Mostly what the program provides is couples’ counseling. Children are “usually not” treated, but when necessary referred to child psychiatrists—of which the Army has 31. Meanwhile, the Child, Adolescent and Family Behavioral Health Office has trained hundreds of counselors in schools with Army children in and around bases to try to identify and treat coping and behavioral problems early on. “We’re better than we were,” Robi­chaux says. “But we still have a ways to go.”

Of course, the Army only helps families of active-duty personnel. It’s the Department of Veterans Affairs that’s charged with treating the problems that can persist long past discharge. But “if you asked the VA to treat your kids, they would think it was nonsense,” says Hofstra’s Motta.

When I asked the VA if the organization would treat kids for secondary trauma, its spokespeople stressed that it has made great strides in family services in recent years, rolling out its own program for couples’ counseling and parenting training. “Our goal is to make the parents the strongest parents they can be,” says Susan McCutcheon, national director for Family Services, Women’s Mental Health, and Military Sexual Trauma at the VA; according to Shirley Glynn, a VA clinical research psychologist who was also on the call, “for the vast majority of people with the secondary traumatization model, the most important way to help the family deal with things is to ensure that the veteran gets effective treatment.” In cases where children themselves need treatment, these VA officials recommended that parents find psychologists themselves, though they note “this is a good time [for the VA] to make partners with the community so we can make good referrals.” Or basically: “You’re on your own,” says Brannan.

“I guess we’re just used to dealing with people with more severe injuries,” a VA nurse once told Brannan upon seeing Caleb.
Brannan sent Katie to the school therapist, once. She hasn’t seen any other therapist, or a therapist trained to deal with PTSD—Brannan knows what a difference that makes, since the volunteer therapist she tried briefly herself spent more time asking her to explain a “bad PTSD day” than how Caleb’s symptoms were affecting the family. When I visited, Katie was not covered by the VA under Caleb’s disability; actually, she wasn’t covered by any insurance at all half the time, since the Vineses aren’t poor enough for subsidized health care and the Blue Cross gap insurance maxes out at six months a year. She’s never been diagnosed with anything, and Brannan prefers it that way. “I’m not for taking her somewhere and getting her labeled. I’d rather work on it in softer ways,” like lots of talks about coping skills, and an art class where she can express her feelings, “until we have to. And I’m hoping we won’t have to.” Certainly she seems better than some other PTSD vets’ kids Brannan knows, who scream and sob and rock back and forth at the sound of a single loud noise, or who try to commit suicide even before they’re out of middle school. Caleb spends enough time worrying that he’s messing up his kid without a doctor saying so.

Brannan is a force of keeping her family together. She sleeps a maximum of five hours a night, keeps herself going with fast food and energy drinks, gets Katie to and from school and to tap dance and art, where Katie produces some startlingly impressive canvases, bright swirling shapes bisected by and intersected with other swaths of color, bold, intricate. That’s typical parent stuff, but Brannan also keeps Caleb on his regimen of 12 pills—antidepressants, anti-anxiety, sleep aids, pain meds, nerve meds, stomach meds—plus weekly therapy, and sometimes weekly physical therapy for a cartilage-lacking knee and the several disintegrating disks in his spine, products of the degenerative joint disease lots of guys are coming back with maybe from enduring all the bomb blasts, and speech therapy for the TBI, and continuing tests for a cyst in his chest and his 48-percent-functional lungs. She used the skills she learned as an assistant to a state Supreme Court justice and running a small newspaper to navigate Caleb’s maze of paperwork with the VA, and the paperwork for the bankruptcy they had to declare while they were waiting years for his disability benefits to come through. She also works for the VA now, essentially, having been—after a good deal more complicated paperwork, visits, and assessments—enrolled in its new caregiver program, which can pay spouses or other family members of disabled vets who have to take care of them full time, in Brannan’s case $400 a week.

At home after school, she makes Katie a pancake snack and then, while Katie shows me the website for a summer camp that teaches military spy skills, Brannan gets back to work. Because she also helps thousands of other people—measured by website and social-media interactions—through Family of a Vet, a nonprofit created “to help you find your way, find the information you need, and find a way not only to cope with life after combat…but to survive and thrive!” Brannan founded the organization in 2007, after panicked Googling led her to the website of Vietnam Veteran Wives (VVW) when Caleb returned from his second tour. Life after the first tour had been pretty normal. “Things were a little…off,” Caleb was edgy, distant, but he did not forget entire conversations minutes later, did not have to wait for a stable mental-health day and good moment between medication doses to be intimate with his wife, and then when he finally tried, pray to Christ for one of the times when it’s good sex, not one of the times when a car door slams outside and triggers him, or the emotion becomes so unbearable that he freezes, gets up, and walks wordlessly out the door.

All that didn’t happen until after the second tour. Brannan was in a terrible place, she says—until she talked to Danna Hughes, founder of VVW. Danna had been through much of the exact same turmoil, decades ago, and had opened a center to help get Vietnam vets benefits and educate their spouses and communities about their condition. “What choice do I have?” Brannan asks about running her own organization. “This is the only reason I am well. People care when you tell them. They just don’t know. They want to help and they want to understand, so I just have to keep going and educating.”

Today she’s fielding phone calls from a woman whose veteran son was committed to a non-VA psychiatric facility, but he doesn’t want to be at the facility because he, a severe-PTSD sufferer, was already paranoid before one of the other resident loons threatened to kill him, and anyway he fought for his fucking country and they promised they wouldn’t abandon him and he swears to God he will have to kill himself if the VA doesn’t put him in with the other soldiers. Another veteran’s wife calls from the parking lot of a diner to which she fled when her husband looked like he was going to boil over in rage. Another woman’s husband had a service dog die in the night, and the death smell in the morning triggered an episode she worries will end in him hurting himself or someone else if she doesn’t get him into a VA hospital, and the closest major clinic is four hours away and she is eight and a half months pregnant and got three hours of sleep, and the clinic’s website says its case manager position for veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan is currently unstaffed, anyway.

The phone never stops ringing. If it does for 14 seconds, Brannan writes an email to help get whatever someone needs, or publishes a blog post about her own struggles. Caleb was not amused the first time one of these posts went live. But now he’s glad she didn’t ask him his permission. “I’d have said no,” he tells me on the couch one day. It’s a brief emergence from his bedroom—he’s been “sleeping or hiding,” Brannan describes it, 20 or so hours a day for a few days. He leans forward to put his glass of orange juice on the table; it takes many, many long seconds for him to cover the few inches; today, like most days, he feels “like a damn train ran over me.” “But because of the feedback she got, I know that other people were going through the same shit I was. And she’s helping people.” His face softens. “She’s got a good heart. She’s always been like that. I’m glad she’s doing it,” he says again, and shrugs, because that’s the end of that story.

Next Page: “One time, a bad guy in Iraq had a knife and my dad killed him,” she says, apropos of nothing.
Page 1 of 2Next
220

The Downside of Austerity Programs

The High Cost of Unemployment
It hurts the morale of a nation’s citizens, and austerity is no solution

By Robert Shiller|Posted Sunday, June 2, 2013, at 2:30 AM

Studies show that people want to work, and that unemployment is costly to morale.

The high unemployment that we have today in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere is a tragedy, not just because of the aggregate output loss that it entails, but also because of the personal and emotional cost to the unemployed of not being a part of working society.
Austerity, according to some of its promoters, is supposed to improve morale. British Prime Minister David Cameron, an austerity advocate, says he believes that his program reduces “welfare dependency,” restores “rigor,” and encourages the “the doers, the creators, the life-affirmers.” Likewise, Rep. Paul Ryan says that his program is part of a plan to promote “creativity and entrepreneurial spirit.”
Some kinds of austerity programs may indeed boost morale. Monks find their life’s meaning in a most austere environment, and military boot camps are thought to build character. But the kind of fiscal austerity that is being practiced now has the immediate effect of rendering people jobless and filling their lives with nothing but a sense of rejection and exclusion.

One could imagine that a spell of unemployment might be a time of reflection, re-establishing personal connections, and getting back to fundamental values. Some economists even thought long ago that we would be enjoying much more leisure by this point. John Maynard Keynes, in his 1930 essay “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” speculated that, within 100 years, that is, by 2030, higher incomes would reduce the average workday to a mere three hours.
While there are still 17 years to go, it appears that Keynes was way off the mark. So was Robert Theobald, who, in his 1963 book Free Men and Free Markets questioned the public’s repugnance toward high unemployment. He asserted that “we can have meaningful leisure rather than destructive unemployment,” and that we do not need “a whirling-dervish economy dependent on compulsive consumption.”
But finding something satisfying to do with our time seems inevitably to entail doing some sort of work: “meaningful leisure” wears thin after a while. People seem to want to work more than three hours a day, even if it is assembly-line work. And the opportunity to work should be a basic freedom.
Unemployment is a product of capitalism: People who are no longer needed are simply made redundant. On the traditional family farm, there was no unemployment. Austerity exposes the modern economy’s lack of interpersonal connectedness and the morale costs that this implies.
Work-sharing might keep more people marginally attached to their jobs in an economic slump, thereby preserving their self-esteem. Instead of laying off 25 percent of its workforce in a recession, a company could temporarily reduce workers’ hours from, say, eight per day to six. Everyone would remain employed, and all would come a little closer to Keynes’ ideal. Some countries, notably Germany, have encouraged this approach.
But work-sharing raises technical problems if increased suddenly to deal with an economic crisis like the one we are now experiencing. These problems preclude the sudden movement toward the ideal of greater leisure that thinkers like Keynes and Theobald proclaimed.
One problem is that workers have fixed costs, such as transportation to work or a health plan, that do not decline when hours (and thus pay) are cut. Their debts and obligations are similarly fixed. They could have bought a smaller house had they known that their hours would be reduced, but now it is difficult to downsize the one that they did buy.
Another problem is that it may be difficult to reduce everyone’s job by the same amount, because some jobs scale up and down with production, while others do not.
In his book Why Wages Don’t Fall During a Recession, Yale’s Truman Bewley reported on an extensive set of interviews with business managers involved with wage-setting and layoffs. He found that they believed that a serious morale problem would result from reducing everyone’s hours and pay during a recession. Then all employees would begin to feel as if they did not have a real job.
In his interviews with managers, he was told that it is best (at least from a manager’s point of view) if the pain of reduced employment is concentrated on a few people, whose grumbling is not heard by the remaining employees. Employers worry about workplace morale, not about the morale of the employees they lay off. Their damaged morale certainly affects others as a sort of externality, which matters very much; but it does not matter to the firm that has laid them off.
We could perhaps all be happy working fewer hours if the decline reflected gradual social progress. But we are not happy with unemployment that results from a sudden fiscal crisis.
That is why sudden austerity cannot be a morale builder. For morale, we need a social compact that finds a purpose for everyone, a way to show oneself to be part of society by being a worker of some sort.
And for that we need fiscal stimulus—ideally, the debt-friendly stimulus that raises taxes and expenditures equally. The increased tax burden for all who are employed is analogous to the reduced hours in work-sharing.
But, if tax increases are not politically expedient, policymakers should proceed with old-fashioned deficit spending. The important thing is to achieve any fiscal stimulus that boosts job creation and puts the unemployed back to work.
This article was originally published by Project Syndicate. For more from Project Syndicate, visit their Web site and follow them on Twitter or Facebook.

The Best Philosophy

THE BEST PHILOSOPHY IS HUME’S SCEPTICISM

The Big Question: Anthony Gottlieb argues for a philosophy that values doubt, caution and modesty

From INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, May/June 2013

If there is a best philosophy, it is surely the one which maintains that every philosophy is doubtful. This is known as scepticism, and it draws its inspiration from some ancient writers who took it much too far. Pyrrho of Elis, on the Ionian sea, was born in the fourth century BC, and is said to have advocated the suspension of judgment about how things really are. Apart from his name and location, almost nothing is known about him, which is rather fitting. Some two centuries later, Pyrrho’s ideas were expanded and defended by “Sextus Empiricus”, of whom not even a real name or location are known.

Every great thinker has in effect adopted a partial version of this extreme philosophy. Each of them refuses to accept what all other philosophers say, and exempts only his own views from doubt. Ancient scepticism takes just one further step and exempts nobody. But this seems to be a fatal move, since scepticism must then swallow itself and disappear. With admirable consistency, Sextus concluded that the true sceptic must suspend judgment about suspending judgment.

It was David Hume, in the 18th century, who showed how to bring scepticism back to life. The first step is to keep in mind what Hume called the “strange infirmities” of human understanding, and the “universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human nature”. Armed with this knowledge—for our ignorance is the one thing of which we can be certain—we should be sure to exercise the “degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner”. Apart from anything else, this would help to cure people of their “haughtiness and obstinacy”.

In theory, we have all learned Hume’s lesson, because a modest scepticism is the official philosophy of the modern sciences, which avow the maxim that every result is to be probed, repeatedly, and no truth may be admitted until it has stood the test of time. But, in fact, we have not learned his lesson. Nobody has time to wait and see whether yesterday’s experiment will still stand several decades from now. Life is short and writers have deadlines. So scepticism is a philosophy that is not easy to live up to. But who would want a philosophy that was?

What do you think is the best philosophy? Read Jesse Norman on Aristotle, mashed up, Angie Hobbs on Plato’s idea of flourishing, Simon Willis on particularism, Colin Blakemore on doubt and Susie Orbach on self-knowledge. Vote now in our online poll

Anthony Gottlieb is a visiting scholar at NYU, former executive editor of The Economist and author of “The Dream of Reason”

They Really Needed a Study for This?

Study: Tax Cuts Might Drive Income Inequality After All
The gap between the rich and rest has risen fastest in countries where politicians have cut taxes the most.

JORDAN WEISSMANNMAY 30 2013, 4:06 PM ET

It’s intuitive that the rich get richer when you cut their taxes. Still, economists have had a hard time proving that taxes actually cause rising income inequality.

But they might be getting closer. A new draft paper out this month from Thomas Piketty, Emannuel Saez, Anthony Atkinson, and Facundo Alverado takes a stab at making the taxes-inequality connection. As their graph below shows, there’s a strong correlation between how much a country cut their top rate since 1960 and how much income went to the top 1 percent of earners.

There is an old argument that cutting taxes for the rich encourages them to work harder. But the paper’s authors are skeptical of that idea. If low taxes on the wealthy made them put more effort into their jobs, we’d expect the countries with the lowest taxes to grow the fastest. That hasn’t happened. Instead, wealthy countries have all been growing at about the same pace for the last several decades, irrespective of their tax policies.

Here’s the alternative theory. If you cut taxes for the rich, they might not work harder, but they will become greedier for more take-home pay. When taxes were higher, a huge salary was less valuable, so maybe rich people shifted their attention to corporate expense accounts and other perks. But today, it’s more worthwhile for executives, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals to bargain for the absolute highest pay package possible. In the case of CEOs whose bank accounts live and die by their company’s stock performance, it’s also become more important to focus on short-term returns, possibly at the expense of long-term investment.

This is all highly speculative, of course. Other factors are also probably at play. The same politicians who cut taxes on the wealthy, the paper notes, also deregulated Wall Street, which has played a huge role in the income gap. But the story does seem to dovetail pretty well with the era of soaring CEO pay and superstar salary scales in professions like law and medicine. The world’s tax codes say greed is good. And the rich appear to have gotten the message.

New Artificial Heart

The Latest Artificial Heart: Part Cow, Part Machine
A French company is preparing to test a complex artificial heart that combines biology with machinery.

By Susan Young on May 30, 2013

WHY IT MATTERS

Around 5.7 million people in the U.S. have heart failure, meaning their hearts cannot pump enough blood and oxygen to other organs.

Cardio cyborg: This rendering shows the biological valves at the top of Carmat’s artificial heart.

A new kind of artificial heart that combines synthetic and biological materials as well as sensors and software to detect a patient’s level of exertion and adjust output accordingly is to be tested in patients at four cardiac surgery centers in Europe and the Middle East. If the “bioprosthetic” device, made by the Paris-based Carmat, proves to be safe and effective, it could be given to patients waiting for a heart transplant. Currently, only one fully artificial heart, made by Tucson, Arizona-based SynCardia, has U.S., Canadian, and European regulatory approval for use in patients.

Attempts to completely replace the human heart with a prosthetic device started decades ago (see “CPR for the Artificial Heart”). It is hugely challenging to create a device that can withstand the harsh conditions of the body’s circulatory system and reliably pump 35 million times per year, as the heart does. Other complications, such as stroke caused by blood clots in artificial heart implants, have also caused setbacks. For these reasons, fully artificial hearts typically serve as a temporary measure, or as a “bridge to transplant,” although the FDA has recently granted a humanitarian use exemption for one of SynCardia’s artificial hearts for patients not currently eligible for a donor heart.

But the great need for a life-saving treatment in heart-failure patients has driven investigators, both in academia and private industry, to try to build a better artificial heart. Around 5.7 million people in the U.S. have heart failure at any given time, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In these patients, the heart’s pumping abilities have grown so weak that it cannot deliver enough oxygen and nutrients to the body. Sometimes failure is limited to one side of the heart and can be treated with an implant that boosts flow but does not replace the heart entirely. But in cases where both sides of the heart are failing, a patient will need a heart transplant. And with demand for heart transplants far exceeding donations, patients can wait for years for a donor heart, while others may be ineligible altogether because of other health issues.

An artificial heart can provide a life-saving bridge while a patient waits for a transplant. Surgeons have implanted a SynCardia artificial heart in over 1,000 patients. Air is pumped from the external control system (which has recently evolved from a large, 418-pound driver to a wearable 13.5-pound driver) through tubes that connect through the skin into the device. Puffs of air expand two small balloons inside each chamber of the artificial heart, which pushes blood out of the prosthesis.

In Carmat’s design, two chambers are each divided by a membrane that holds hydraulic fluid on one side. A motorized pump moves hydraulic fluid in and out of the chambers, and that fluid causes the membrane to move; blood flows through the other side of each membrane. The blood-facing side of the membrane is made of tissue obtained from a sac that surrounds a cow’s heart, to make the device more biocompatible. “The idea was to develop an artificial heart in which the moving parts that are in contact with blood are made of tissue that is [better suited] for the biological environment,” says Piet Jansen, chief medical officer of Carmat.

That could make patients less reliant on anti-coagulation medications. The Carmat device also uses valves made from cow heart tissue and has sensors to detect increased pressure within the device. That information is sent to an internal control system that can adjust the flow rate in response to increased demand, such as when a patient is exercising.

The system was developed through collaboration between the European Aerospace and Defense Systems and Alain Carpentier, a cardiac surgeon who pioneered heart valve repair.

“It’s a brilliant device; I just worry about the size and mechanical durability,” says William Cohn, a heart surgeon at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston. Tasked with pumping 100,000 times or more a day, most artificial hearts don’t last more than a few years, says Cohn. “A device that lasts two to three years is, at best, a stopgap for transplant.”

Carmat’s device is just one of several artificial hearts in development across the globe. Cohn and colleagues have been testing another sort of artificial heart which does not generate a heartbeat, but instead continuously pumps blood out through the body. The hope is that a continuous-flow heart, although quite different than the natural organ, will avoid the risk of mechanical failure that hangs over the pulsing-flow artificial hearts.

Recently, the Texas Heart Institute recruited Australian engineer Daniel Timms to bring his novel continuous-flow artificial heart to Houston. The device is small, does not pulse, and has a single moving part: a magnetically levitated rotor that sports two impellers, one that pushes blood from the body into the lungs to be re-oxygenated, and the other to push the oxygen-rich blood into the body. The simplicity of the design, which Cohn says should resist mechanical wear and tear, contrasts with the complex Carmat artificial heart, which contains many moving parts. But Timms’s system is years away from being tested in patients, and will first be tested in calves.

1

Read more: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515021/the-latest-artificial-heart-part-cow-part-machine/#ixzz2UszJpCnK
From MIT Technology Review
Follow us: @techreview on Twitter | technologyreview on Facebook

Does Technology Hold the Key to a Flatter World?

Our Equal Future: Does Technology Hold the Key to a Flatter World?
Far from making the world more fair, technology serves to reinforce, and perhaps even increase, inequalities.
KENTARO TOYAMAMAY 29 2013, 11:24 AM ET

Over the past two weeks, I, along with millions of other Trekkers, sat in a dark, air-conditioned theater and met once again the crew of the Enterprise, as I’ve done many times over the last few years over Netflix and on various hotel-room TVs. But the more I’ve watched, the more I’ve been I’ve been visited by a nagging feeling that the whole concept is even more escapist than even its sci-fi veneer would suggest. But what could possibly exceed warp speed in imagination? Aren’t holodecks already the pinnacle of escapism?

It was during the latest movie that I was able to put my finger on it. Much of the film takes place circa 2259 AD on Earth, and something clicked as the villain John Harrison gallivanted from one action sequence to another through the streets of London and San Francisco: In Star Trek, our planet is full of sky-bound towers and gleaming architecture, but unlike the darker futures of Robocop or Blade Runner, there are no slums. In the world envisioned by Gene Roddenberry, the poor are no longer with us.

A quarter millennium before Captain James T. Kirk, one of the persistent myths about technology is that it makes society more equal. In 2005, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman insisted on it in the title of his book, The World is Flat. Digital technologies — from Netscape to mobile phones — figured prominently in nine of his “ten forces that flattened the world.” In a 2010 interview, social media pundit Clay Shirky said — even as he attempted to distance himself from an earlier techno-utopianism — that “I am an optimist about democratizing media.” This year, in a keynote at the media and technology conference South by Southwest, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan proclaimed that “Technology can level the playing field instead of tilting it against low-income, minority and rural students.”

Flattening, democratizing, leveling…these are words frequently associated with digital technologies — but is that what they really do?

I lived in India for more than five years starting in 2004, and what I saw was increasing inequality. The country’s elite families were superpowered by the IT boom and the diffusion of mobile telephony. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country’s traditional underclasses remained stuck in illiteracy and malnutrition, even as they acquired cell phones. Inequalities have increased as educated people capitalize on a new knowledge economy while others have neither the training nor the cultural capital even to apply for the job of an assistant to a receptionist at a call center.

This pattern is everywhere for anyone with eyes to see it. To cite a few examples: In a 2005 article, The Economist noted astutely that:

the digital divide is not a problem in itself, but a symptom of deeper, more important divides: of income, development and literacy[…] So even if it were possible to wave a magic wand and cause a computer to appear in every household on earth, it would not achieve very much: a computer is not useful if you have no food or electricity and cannot read.

Oxford Internet Institute researcher Mark Graham studies the underrepresentation of digital content in poorer countries and poorer neighborhoods. In a world where marketing is increasingly virtual, those with less digital aptitude are literally invisible to would-be customers who navigate the world through digital maps.

And in the New York Times a few weeks ago, Jenna Wortham worried about a “gated community of gadgetry” as new technologies like Google Glass enter the market at high cost. She writes that people who can afford a new technology’s earlier versions have a competitive advantage.

Technology, of course, creates new possibilities; it lowers barriers to information and communication. But consistently, the barriers are lowered more for some than for others exactly because the digital divide is a result of other divides, less a cause. Anyone can send an e-mail to the President of the United States, but not everyone gets a response. Anyone can “friend” Rihanna on Facebook, but not everyone is friended back. Anyone can open up an online shop, but not everyone will be Amazon. Digital technologies provide possibility, but possibility isn’t actuality.

This gap between possibility and actuality, which I alluded to before, is the source of the myth of technology’s equalizing power. Technologies increase possibility, sure, but actual outcomes depend on other assets. Given the jagged social world we live in — where some people have immense wealth, elite educations, and powerful networks, while others don’t — technology amplifies the differences.

People with power, wealth, and celebrity don’t stand still as new technologies are introduced to the masses. They also use technologies to further leverage their capabilities and build on their advantages. Britney Spears hires publicists to tweet to her 27 million Twitter followers. Hyper-educated prodigies start multimillion-dollar tech companies. Presidential candidates ramp up their Internet fundraising contributing to billion-dollar war chests. Far from flattening and democratizing, technology serves to reinforce, even increase, inequalities.

So, what to do? Unfortunately, even technology critics tend to mislead us. Having identified a technology problem, they think in terms of technology solutions. Graham suggests that digital maps should indicate what they don’t know, as if that would even the odds for the unrepresented. The Economist article, in a logic-defying turnaround suggests that we should promote “the spread not of PCs and the internet, but of mobile phones.” Wortham hopes for low-cost technologies, inadvertently buying into the market fundamentalism of low-cost goods as the answer to social inequalities.

There’s little point in closing technology divides, though, as long as capability divides and political divides persist. In fact, focusing on digital symptoms can be a distracting non-substitute for the real cure, like an ice bath for a fever. We don’t lose sleep over otherwise privileged people who are digitally illiterate because deep inside, we know that it’s not the technological disparities that are the real problem. That’s why no one shed a tear for John McCain when it was revealed he didn’t use e-mail. That’s why there are no non-profits working to help well-off gadget abstainers overcome their refusal to use iPhones.

And that’s why Star Trek has begun to feel especially escapist to me. Having swept away social challenges with ultra-technologies, the series bought into a much larger fantasy. Fans of science fiction emphasize how advanced science creates a unique backdrop against which to explore human problems. In Star Trek, though, the claim is that science has solved all human problems — the only remaining threats to humanity come from either aliens or remnants of a misguided past. (Okay, there’s also that pesky problem of “not enough power!”)

It’s a nice conceit, and I’ll continue to watch Star Trek for its diversionary value. But one day, I hope we’ll get to see the future trajectory that brings about the egalitarian world that Captain Jean-Luc Picard explained in First Contact: “The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” If we ever figure out how to reach that point, it will be worth more than the galaxy’s store of dilithium crystals.

Channeling an Ultra Marathoner

What Are Extreme Runners Thinking?
The addicts, obsessives, pain seekers, and euphoria nuts who choose to race 100 miles.
By Lisa Palmer|Posted Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 12:11 PM

Ultramarathon running god Scott Jurek has a deep, gnawing pain. The familiar assault begins 30 miles into a 100-mile race. His legs feel like they’ve been beaten by a baseball bat, and his suffering will only increase over the next 70 miles. Sooner or later he’ll contend with a pitiful triad: vomiting, dry heaves, and stomach pains from the stress of sweating, eating, and drinking while running continuously. And that’s the best-case scenario.
Jurek’s ultimate mind-numbing race was done on a one-mile oval track for 24 hours. He pounded out 165.7 miles—the equivalent of 6 1/2 marathons in one day—and set an American record. At a race in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, Jurek ran the 100-mile course on a sprained ankle, climbing and descending a cumulative 66,000 feet in elevation over 11 mountain passes—and still won. A third of the way into a 135-mile run across Death Valley, in tortuous heat that singed his nose hairs, he took a reprieve and crawled inside a coffin-size, ice-filled cooler because, Jurek said, it “felt like my internal organs were liquifying.”
Why is Jurek comfortable with being so uncomfortable? Is he crazy? Or is he superhuman?
Distance running has a long history of attracting addicts, obsessive personalities, the hopelessly selfish, those who endured tough childhoods, or any combination thereof. Jurek writes about those folks in his book Eat and Run: My Unlikely Journey to Ultramarathon Greatness, and he shares the story of his own thorny upbringing in northern Minnesota. As a kid, chores ruled his life. Jurek’s mother was disabled from multiple sclerosis, and he describes his father as extremely demanding. From the age of 6, Jurek had to stack firewood for hours before taking a rare break to play with a friend. By sixth grade, Jurek did most of his family’s chores, including laundry, cooking, gardening, and yard work. In middle school, the stress of his home life gave him such high blood pressure that his pediatrician prescribed immediate treatment: He could take medication or have downtime. Jurek chose the latter and took to running on woodland trails behind his home.

Running itself can be an addiction. Research on rats has shown that they love running so much they can run themselves to death. A runner’s high is a real thing. Exercise triggers the release of endorphins and endocannabinoids, naturally occurring reward chemicals in the brain. But just what kind of person becomes hooked on ultrarunning?
You might think that such an absurd sport attracts only absurd people. But I had the opportunity to run with Jurek recently in Laguna Niguel, Calif., and almost nothing about him comes off as weird. We went for a 5k run on a paved trail one day. Another day we covered the same distance along the beach and through a neighborhood. In both cases we ran at an eight-minute-per-mile pace, and he seemed fine with that. Tall and rangy, Jurek looks like a typical athletic guy. At 6-foot-2 and 165 pounds, he’s big for a runner. His best marathon time is 2:38, which is swift but not enough to win the 26.2-mile race. His left foot juts out when he runs. He’s exceptionally outgoing and friendly. He even wears the same off-the-shelf running shoes I do. Maybe the only thing that seems a little quirky is the strict vegan diet he follows and his vegan evangelist ways, which raises the question an interviewer once asked: “How can he run so far and so fast on vegetables?”
Jurek has a healthy ratio of confidence and humility. He says extreme running has made him a better human being. “I’ve learned a lot about myself and how I tackle tough situations,” he said. “When people look at it on paper, it doesn’t make sense: ‘Why do you put your body through all that and your mind?’ But I think because in the end, I come out a different person, and I look at life differently.”
He also seems to perceive pain differently. He has learned both to mask pain and to use it as a motivator. Pain-easing music helped him get through the last few hours of his 24-hour running record. But mostly he accepts pain as a given. He runs toward it. Pain has rewards for Jurek, and he considers it a tool to “pry myself open.”
Researchers have studied the nutritional needs and mental toughness of ultrarunners and found that they have a strong psyche that’s balanced by euphoria. For them, euphoria trumps pain. They regard 100- or 150-mile challenges as a great thrill, whereas regular athletes like me would think of such a run as the most miserable thing ever. Brain chemistry may help explain the difference between my pain scale and Jurek’s. Charles A. Morgan of Yale Medical School studied Special Forces soldiers at Fort Bragg’s Resistance Training Laboratory and found that neuropeptide Y, a molecule that transmits signals in the brain, works as a tranquilizer for Special Forces soldiers under extreme stress. The Special Forces soldiers produce massive amounts of neuropeptide Y compared to regular troops.
Still, running continuously for so long in harsh conditions can’t be good for you, right? Brian Krabak, sports medicine physician at the University of Washington, has studied ultramarathoners’ strategies and preparation. His research indicates that ultra races, including events that are 50, 100, or 150 miles long, aren’t dangerous for runners who have trained appropriately. Medically speaking, their bone, heart, and muscle health are fine. Krabak says pretty much everybody will suffer from diarrhea, dehydration, or other ailments during a long run. Injuries are relatively minor. Runners can rehydrate relatively quickly, and they recover from muscle fatigue within a week or two.
Participation in the sport has surged over the past five years; the number of those who compete has doubled. An estimated 70,000 people run ultramarathons in North America. “People unreasonably choose to do this,” Krabak said. But can anyone do this? According to him, ultrarunners really are not like you and me. “The reality is, only the people who can push the envelope can do this. It’s a physical toughness and mental toughness weeding-out process.”
Mental toughness is something that the best coaches impress upon their athletes. My running coach, Ed Purpura, who has a long history of producing winning high school cross-country and track teams in Maryland, addressed the mental game in my first training plan: “Things will seem like they are going well and you are handling them, and then a workout will come that will have you doubting everything. That is when you must truly be open to what it takes to achieve your goals.” Purpura always tells me racing and training is about dealing with doubts and fears and then gaining confidence from the experience. While I still struggle with keeping faith in myself when I confront difficulties, Jurek has mastered the mental game.
In his 20-year ultramarathon career, Jurek has won 35 major titles and set 16 course records. He is now training for the high-altitude Leadville Trail 100 ultramarathon in the Colorado Rocky Mountains in August. Leadville was featured prominently in Born to Run, Christopher McDougall’s book about extreme runners, as was Jurek. The Leadville course begins at 9,200 feet and rises to 12,600 feet. Participants expect extreme weather such as thunderstorms, hail, and snow. Fewer than half of those who attempt Leadville complete it. In 2004, it took Jurek slightly more than 18 hours to run the race, which got him second place. Now he’s aiming for a win, and he plans to focus his training solely on Leadville over the next few months. He’ll train 90 to 100 miles a week, much of it at altitude. The bulk of the training will be on weekends, with back-to-back runs of 30 miles, one on Saturday and one on Sunday. During most of his ultramarathon career, Jurek trained and raced on weekends while supporting himself as a physical therapist. Now he relies on sponsorship deals and public speaking for income.
The training for Leadville will get Jurek back to what he loves most: breaking away from technology and the “craziness of modern life. I can just tap into those primal roots of being a human being and immerse myself in the conditions around me,” he says, adding that he looks forward to only dealing with altitude and the sheer distances. “All those things combined get me responding in a way that I think we used to respond as humans back in the day. Now we don’t have to, and life has become so comfortable.”
So now we’re back to discomfort. Maybe the simple reason Jurek is a superman is that he loves the pain from running in remote places as much as the euphoria it brings.