Welcome...

My brother majored in political science at the university. Tonight, he was chatting with me about what he had learned there. And it dawned on me that this academic field of political science really is at the heart of a lot of the problems of our usa society. Political science sees the events of the world as defined by a competition between different interests. And the power dynamics between different parties are seen as the key to understanding how the world works.

I see this as being an extremely immature way to view things. One thing I’ve seen in the journalism of New Zealand in recent months, is that there aren’t any games of power taking place as the authors write. It’s quite different - journalists seek to nurture the citizens of their city and their country - they write in a transparent and disarming fashion.

Journalists, of course, have a lot of power in setting the framework for how people will think about their society, and talk about their communities. In contrast to New Zealand, usa journalists and news commentary folks are always engaged in these efforts to gain power for one particular consensus or the next.

I think it’s only sensible to see that we can all reason with eachother, and come to an agreement about the wisest course to take, and see eye to eye about the assessment on a situation. It’s an insane idea to believe that one person’s gain is another’s loss. Things just don’t work that way. There’s a story which christians use, where they describe their religious community as being like a human body; each person, or group of people have a different set of skills, and interests - and like different parts of a body, they perform different functions to benefit the community. And the other thing that is recognised, is that if one part of the body hurts, the whole body suffers. This is a much more realistic way to see a community, than to view it as a bunch of separate competing interests.

I always follow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation podcasts for some of the best food for thought available today. Paul Kennedy is one of the best hosts with his “Ideas” show. This is a very thought provoking hour long debate at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.

Many people who are bleeding hearts and want to help others and who feel so guilty when not enough is done - often have poor judgement with how they are trying to help those who receive their aid. I have visited many a homeless shelter, for example, which is run by a very strained and odd set of ideas about what is ethical and what is constructive in terms of their assistance programs.

This includes Dambiss Moyo, who is a Zambian who gives a wonderful first hand account of what she sees occurring around aid which is distributed in Africa. She is very adamant that what is needed is investment and development, rather than the aid which breeds corruption. One thing she pointed out in this debate was that governments in Africa don’t provide public services. That job is done by aid organisations instead. This is such a powerful effect that one of her friends who was talking about elections joked that they should be voting between aid organisations, rather than choosing between candidates for government.

Hernando de Soto was another speaker here, and he pointed out a realisation that we have forgotten on the dusty pages of history books somewhere. Hundreds of years ago, we had big debates about property rights in the West. Now, these days we have these fools who call themselves “libertarians” who misinterpret all this historical literature. They have a specter of big bad government in mind, and fret when someone in town loses their property to an eminent domain claim by the state. Indeed, what folks in olden days were talking about when they addressed property rights was a fact about economics. You can’t have a functioning economy, without the investments being backed by assets. He was particularly angry about what has been done to the Native Americans in the Usa. They’re stuck in a 19th century treaty agreement in which they have dead assets. Their land cannot be sold or used in ways which other land outside reservations can be. It cannot be used to back investments.

So the lesson is that people who care about others need to really have their ears open to those who have experienced the hardship which they are concerned about.

The munk debate on the proposition: Foreign aid does more harm than good - (mp3 - 25 megabytes - one hour)

This is a preview of an excellent film I just watched. It is basically a series of aerial video shot all around the world… with a emphasis on simple geometry. The narrative takes you through a very straightforward and simply worded history of our relationship to nature. And it prods one to think about the effect that we humans are having on our planet. You can watch the entire film at youtube, —-> here <—-

I need to write an update about my models about these two categories of people which I have earlier described as “nurturer/thinkers” as compared to “posturers.” I have been studying Canada, New Zealand, and recently Britain. And I see that these categories don’t really fit these groups of people in countries outside the usa; and they might not even fit well most places outside of my little tourist town where I live in the Rocky Mountains.

A better description of these two groups which is more universal is those who are curious about the world, and who put a high priority on learning lots of eclectic things - as compared to those who simply walk through the motions of life as it is laid out for them. The latter group is larger than the former group, in every part of the world that I’ve seen so far.

And there is definitely friction between these two groups. During this play - the Mikado - which I’ve been working on in recent weeks, there was a 13 year old boy who I saw was very curious about the world - he had studied additives to foods - he knew what some of those multisyllable words on packaging labels mean - he had a fascination for history which we touched on in conversation once or twice, he had a very well developed stage character, and he seemed to have a knack for charming younger children as well. And yet, there was some tension between the rest of the cast and him.

One of our theatre set designers who I brought on board, also is this type of person - a very wise and caring person who had a very strong vision for the set, who was very dedicated in her work in helping to bring this wonderful little theatre town into existence. She is a person who was able to delegate tasks, and who knows how to mentor people, and get people situated where they can be fruitful in their efforts. And yet, again, there was friction between her and the other people working on the play.

I, myself, have also felt this effect. And what seems to happen (especially when a person is young) is that he or she develops a prop in his life - some kind of improper manner of relating to others or some kind of poor habit that helps him understand this social handicap he has, within a context that makes sense to him. These are very ignoble social habits that one develops. It’s tragic, because these bad social habits become ingrained, and they hamper one’s life as one grows up to be an adult.

So, this is a very fascinating social dynamic which I have studied at length - it’s the riddle that I have needed to figure out, in order to move forward with my life. And looking at the social dynamic in Britain, in Canada, and in New Zealand really helps. I see that Canada and Britain have a problem with deep thinking people making those nations’ entire public discourse into a giant tug of war game. If you’re a deep thinking person - you start seeing what social trends will lead to… and you see what things are good and bad for your society - and you tend to want to “toss in your oar” (to use a Gilbert and Sullivan anachronism), to influence winds of consensus - and also governmental and business policies. The problem that occurs, is that there are also many unreasonable people who see your passion for persuasive discourse, and they make a sport out of coming in to argue against your stance. And this just makes a mess. For ordinary people, it’s like having parents who are always fighting and at each other’s throats.

And honestly, I think that New Zealand shows us the way forward. There, they have an ethic that there is to be no persuasion at all in public discourse. When following their news media over the net - the only time I see persuasion is when I watch advertisements for goods and services. Journalists also seem to have a strong ethic about nurturing their citizenry. They seem to appreciate the magnitude of the influence they have over the zeitgeist of their society. Unlike Britain or Canada, New Zealand’s daily literature is not full of wordy essays from people who have had magnificent personal insights about issue a or b or c. New Zealand’s journalism is very frank, transparent, and concise. It’s not created by the curious autodidacts - but instead it is created by those who are somewhat less curious about the world - those folks who are walking on the road of life quite contentedly, without giving much time to introspective thought. However, because of these accepted Kiwi ethics about:

• nurturing one’s society,
• and not having persuasive writing as a form of public discourse

New Zealanders seem to reach a lot of right conclusions about matters, a lot earlier than other english speaking countries - (even as compared to Britain ;-) ). And consequently, New Zealand is the most progressive english speaking nation. Just to spice up this essay, I’ll give two very interesting examples: They were both the first nation to give women the right to vote - in 1893. And they were the first nation to legalise prostitution - in 2003.

So, I really am considering emigrating to New Zealand. I find that Kiwis (New Zealanders) on the internet are some of the only people who value what I have to say in my essays. They find my manner of relating to people with text to be endearing. And so I would encourage any people out there who see themselves as being misunderstood geniuses to take a good long hard look at New Zealand. Study up on it. It takes a few weeks of following current events with their news media outlets to get a picture of the country - to see their passions, and their ways of thinking and living. It’s good to study a country through a tragedy, through many joys, and through a big political change. I’m sad I didn’t watch the elections where John Key replaced Helen Clark. I was too busy watching the election of Barack Obama in the Usa, and the defeat of Stéphane Dion in Canada.

This poem was written by Denise Levertov, a very gifted poet. I remember reading through a book of her poems when I was in my first year of college. I think, however, that ideally this kind of poetry requires a person who has had enough life experience to be able to weigh the ideas which the poems allude to. This poem “Red Snow” is the last part of a three part story. I am sharing it here, because it seems to me that it’s a very good metaphor for how intellectuals in countries like Canada and Britain vainly pursue the sport of persuasion, as the method by which they seek to effect change in their society.

Crippled with desire, he questioned it.
Evening upon the heights, juice of the pomegranate:
who could connect it with sunlight?

He took snow into his 
red from cold hands
It would not acknowledge the blood inside,
stayed white, melted only.

And all summer, beyond how many plunging valleys
                                    remote verdant lesser peaks,
still there were fields 
                        by day silver
                        hidden often in thunderheads,
but faithful before night, crimson.
He knew it was red snow

He grows tall, and sets out.
The story, inexorably, is of arrival long after, by dark.
Tells he stood waiting
                    bewildered
                       in stinging silver towards dawn
                    and looked over the abysses, back;

            the height of his home,snowy, red,
            taunted him. Fable snuffs out
                                                What did he do?

                        He grew old.
                    With bloodbright hands, he wrought 
                icy monuments.
            Beard and long hair flying he rode the whirlwind
keening the praises of red snow.

I’ve turned my attention to Britain, recently.

Today, I found this really interesting little video interview where a British intellectual by the name of George Monbiot grills a member of parliament - Hazel Blears.

I think this is a very profoundly obvious illustration of how english speaking intellectuals act in a misguided manner. The sport that we who have many words engage in, is persuasion. We are strong-willed folks, who have these visions for how to make the world a better place, and we go about trying to persuade others to see things as we do. I think that’s our biggest wrongdoing. We ourselves, of course, are enthusiastic about our ideas, and are trying to accomplish something really great. But we’re going about it the wrong way… and I wonder if the way Hazel Blears approaches her work and her life embodies the true Britain. Is Britain a hen-pecked nation?

I can see what Monbiot is trying to point out, in the interview - his idea is that this is a woman who doesn’t deserve to be in office, because she doesn’t have any kind of independent judgement about matters. But to my sensibilities, it seems that he’s being a real asshole.

Something I’ve written about before, is that I have been working on a community theatre production recently - Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado” - and one thing I’ve seen is that our director has a very easy going, passive approach. His assistant director did most of the choreography. But it seems as if this passive approach really paid off. I don’t think that directors who are domineering are effective. I’ve worked with a few of them. Because our director is passive, each member of the cast was given the freedom to develop their own character according to their own vision. And together we really produced an excellent show. We have extremely small audiences - mostly family and friends of the cast in a venue that sits hundreds. But people go out at the end of the night muttering about how professional a performance it was.

In the same manner - intellectuals in New Zealand also take a passive approach. There doesn’t seem to be any persuasion at all in their public discourse - except when it comes to marketing goods and services through advertising. I was listening to a broadcast one day about a new form of military naval vessel which had been comissioned. And the interviewee started talking in light of her value judgements about the thing - she said they seem “snazzy” or something like that. But then she immediately realised that she had crossed an ethical line, and during the rest of the interview, she was very careful to be transparent and frank about the thing she was talking about.

Because of this ethic which journalists and intellectuals have in New Zealand - it appears to me that they, as a nation, come to more accurate conclusions by and large than the rest of english speaking world. And consequently, they are more progressive. They were the first nation to give women the right to vote, for example. They seem to stay somewhat ahead of the curve on these things.

And golly, reading some discussion boards where folks who are immigrating to New Zealand are talking about their move, and their new life - you see nothing but unapologetic enthusiasm.

Personally, in many ways, I really find a lot more food for thought in Canadian and British journalism. But I believe that we deep thinking folk might have a better niche in our societies if we keep our debate among ourselves - in internet forums, for instance. We should let journalism, on the other hand, be a thing which is transparent and frank - and does not seek to persuade or impose value judgements on the things it reports on.

A star-trek-like holodeck has been created. If you’ll notice, the gentleman is wearing special glasses, and there are double images on the walls. This is because when you’re wearing the glasses it’s a 3d environment.

More information can be found here.

Last night, I watched a segment on new zealand television news about how there’s a big problem with people in positions of management in that country who bully their employees. And now, the context behind a lot of new zealander body language is becoming clearer to me. There’s definitely an attitude of timidity which would result from being bullied.

And given my other recent epiphanies about new zealand, I realize that the problem could be easily solved if people raised their kids differently. See this previous post of mine. Over the years, the next generation of kids would not learn those bad habits which involve overbearing and unkind attitudes towards those who they have authority over.

And given how simple this apparently wide-scale new zealand cultural problem is to solve, it got me thinking about problems I moan about every day in my own society in the usa. There are two problems which really weary me here. One is the immaturity of men, coupled with the lack of latitude given to men when it comes to expressing affection to children and youth. A man has to be very very cautious about his body language, and interactions around youth and children so that he can both bond with those kids, but also avoid looking like the stereotype people have in mind when they think about what we call a “pedophile.” The answer, I realized this morning, is very simple - go out there and promote the values of man-child, and father-child bonding. It would take years, but if boys and male teens starting developing better bonds with adult men, the next generation of adult men would be a lot more mature and better socially adjusted than those of this generation are.

Another problem that I realized would actually be easy to solve is the “starving artist” problem. The answer here is for us who do aspire to high levels of skill with art or literature or whatever else to stop encouraging those who honestly do not to go into what would be for them a very unhappy lifestyle. For many years I tried to get my older brother into a lifestyle where he had more time for general skill building - I encouraged him to pick up videotography, and singing… things which were really my own aspirations and not his. Eventually he started pushing back. He frankly likes his high paying job as finance analyst working in the public sector for a major usa city. Myself, I would feel incredibly unfulfilled in that kind of job… but he apparently gets quite a high salary (he won’t ever tell me for sure, so I don’t know) and he has become an important benefactor so that I can have a stipend with which I can pay for living expenses, so that I have massive amounts of time for my own skill building endeavors. Yesterday, on New Zealand tv, I also saw a segment on an australian man who quaintly considers it art to grow an ear under the skin of his arm. It’s a technological marvel, but certainly not an artistic marvel. And he should never have been talked into calling what he is doing “performance art.”

What I see generally, is that those of us with large amounts of skill end up entering into an unhealthy social dynamic by how we choose our friends and our projects. For instance, I have spent years at reddit.com because I recognize that discussion board/link sharing site provides an opportunity for changing the winds of social trends in the english speaking world. However, the reason thoughtful independent thinkers have success with what we’ve done there, is exactly because it’s a sour place. Most commenters and contributors do not take the place seriously at all. And that means that those of us who do, get the opportunity to have our ideas stand out very prominently in the conversations.

This is a similar thing to the effect of the “modern art movement” - a lot of rich people have bought into this vision - and they have come to support a speculation market, and art galleries. But honestly, is modern art good art? There’s a very excellent effect on the world of visual art, which the modern art movement has. If you have simple abstract combinations of motifs lifted up and looked to as the summa cum laude expression of art - you are actually esteeming the studio excercise. This gives beginners in visual art a lot of self esteem as they pursue all those important excercises in their own studios. Consequently, our photography and graphic design in the West is really high quality. Every art museum becomes a school for aspiring artists - where they can study how folks develop their techniques.

But still we have the question, “is modern art good art”? And I would say it isn’t, in and of itself (unless we’re referring to the other meaning of art - a tradesperson’s technique). The sentiment that has worked so well for the visual arts encourages bad trends in the performing arts - such as music, and film and stand up comedy. Our performing arts in the usa are frankly atrocious, and getting worse every decade. People take the idea of abstract art from the visual arts, and they sloppily adopt the idea that they need to encourage amateurism rather than encouraging excellence.

The upshot of the fact that those who pursue excellence in literature, like myself, gravitating towards reddit - or those who aspire to excellence in the performing arts lauding modern abstract visual art, is that you have an effect where those rich people cannot find us, when they want to contribute their resources to give folks opportunities who show promise in these art forms. They see that talented people are mixed up with the riff-raff who aren’t taking their approach to art seriously. Therefore, those of us who would want to improve the quality of literature or performing art in the usa end up lacking the resources to be able do so (the more dedicated among us barely have the resources to pay our personal living expenses).

I heard a fascinating interview this evening on Radio New Zealand tonight, with an author of a book about childcare - a woman by the name of Diane Levy.

• Listen to it, here (12 minute mp3).

A few days back, I wrote up a post speaking about my worries in respect to New Zealand kids.

And hmmm… my perspective has evolved somewhat. I’ve learned a bit more about about kids in New Zealand recently. There have been some delightful segments in this late summer on TV3, for instance. I think that overall, kids would seem to be better off than they are in the states. The ones I’ve seen seem to have a light of intelligence in their eyes and in their demeanor… which you don’t see in the usa.

Definitely, there’s a whole different social dynamic around kids; and certainly, I would no longer be minded to say that New Zealand is “on a precipice,” in any way, because of how kids are being raised.

But this was a very fascinating interview which I heard this evening, listening to Radio New Zealand. It gave me a lot of insight into the thing I had misgivings about earlier. It’s interesting to see that both the interviewer and the interviewee were on the same page about what should be expected from kids.

First, let me talk about child rearing in my country - the usa.

The attitude I heard in these two women hearkens back to an era decades ago in the states. We had a revolution in how children are raised and thought about - and it seems to have started with a popular television program in the late 1970s and early 1980s - “Mr Rogers’ neighborhood.” His ideas about childhood and children became a rallying point for all kinds of parents and teachers - and the preschool teacher organizations fixed upon that as the foundation for their philosophy about children. The idea is that children’s minds are coming into focus. They don’t have as great a capacity of reasoning when they are very young - and so you don’t expect that from them. I certainly disagree with this idea. I believe that children need to be nurtured from an early age - and their minds need to be nurtured as well. Children can reason from birth, and if you bring that perspective with you, it will make your job as a parent a lot easier.

Interestingly enough, parents do a great service for their kids when they play all these silly games with babies and toddlers even if it’s only because in their view, that babies have no capacity for reason. These parents teach their children how to be kids in the usa tradition - they teach their kids to talk in metaphors - and to use body language extensively to communicate their feelings and ideas to parents. And the skill of using your body language to communicate with others, and to be able to read people’s body language really well is a very important one that kids will take with them as the grow up, and journey onwards into their later years.

Now, let me talk a bit about Diane Levy and her ideas. She has very good advice. The actions she recommends make sense to me - they certainly seem to be things that would tend to create a good social dynamic for the kids and the parents. However, the attitude she has seems to be that the kid is an object, rather than a person. She has prescriptions for what to do at various points, because in her view these objects known as “children” exhibit certain properties at these moments.

Why does the child not want to talk after she or he is picked up from school? Diane Levy has some wonderful ideas about this. But she neglects to accept the idea that she or other parents might bear some personal responsibility for the tension which boils over at that point. I remember the very scenario when I was a boy. And as I remember - my feelings at that point were that there had been a betrayal of trust at some point… which meant that I knew it wasn’t wise to confide in my mother carelessly. Furthermore, there was a power struggle which was ongoing between me and my mother. Something had happened at school that day that I needed to digest quietly by myself. I didn’t want to breach the topic with my mom until I thought it through a little bit. And so, while I really do appreciate the advice that Ms. Levy gives parents… I think that this kind of situation that Ms. Levy describes, really should be a reason for a caregiver to reassess how he or she is dealing with his child daily. Why is there a power struggle there? And what can be done to have some reconciliation between yourself and the child? I mean, maybe the adult is the one who needs to learn how to respect the child more.

The very idea of “respect,” in the way it’s being bandied about in that interview is flawed. I noticed that Diane Levy immediately gave a candid description of particular situations where New Zealand parents would misconstrue the idea of respect. This gives me some nuggets of insight into where the weaknesses are in childrearing for some New Zealand households. I also noticed, sadly, that Ms. Levy immediately embarked into a frame of reference where she describes what she thinks of as a justifiable power struggle between the parent and the kid. If there’s a power struggle with a child, you’re not parenting rightly. A adult-child relationship is a symbiotic relationship - a nurturing relationship. And as Diane Levy so poetically pointed out with her reference to “the GST approach” - the parent is the giver. The child’s role in the matter is to be gracious, affectionate, and conscientious, in view of the fact that she or he is nurtured better if that affection is shown to the adult. So the model that works: is this nurture which is traded for affection. If a power struggle evolves that is persistent - it means that your friendship with the child is strained.

Now the idea of “friendship” did come up towards the end of the interview. I thought it quite audacious for it to be said that “you can’t be a friend with your child.” Maybe the word “friend” means something different in New Zealand, I don’t know. The situation described of getting down and wrestling with the kid isn’t my definition of “being a friend;” rather, I would call it “being a kid alongside your kid.” Diane Levy says that she thinks that’s ok, though she herself wouldn’t do it. I, on the other hand, have seen that fundamentally, wrestling with kids like that - descending to their level - really doesn’t ever work. One has to maintain one’s role - as an adult friend, and caregiver. Kids value parents because they are parents - and can be disillusioned if their parents or caregivers start acting like their silly peers. It was a very hard lesson for me to learn as a teenager, that I could never be a kid again with kids - and still retain their respect; to be a good adult or role model with them, I needed to retain a professional distance from childlike behaviour. So I agree with the idea that one should not get down to the kid’s level with the child. But when it comes to the definition of friendship, I would insist that there are many kinds of friendships - and an adult-child friendship is one of the most poignant of these. It is friendship, indeed.

Another important word that was brought up in this interview was “discipline.” Diane Levy had a very quick response to this - she talked about how parents don’t have the right to berate their children. However, again, the context which seems to be accepted for the concept by both people in that conversation worries me. Again, to hear the word used in that particular manner in which it was in the interview just takes me back 20 years. My favorite early childhood education professor at my university (I’ll be careful not to say college - which means secondary school in New Zealand), defined discipline for us on the first day of class. My teacher, Joanne Ellingson, drew on the etymology of the word - and she pointed out that it is rooted in the word “disciple,” which means a teacher - someone who leads by example. “Correction” is a better word to use, I think, when it comes to children than “discipline.” To correct somebody means to make certain they change their approach to a situation. That’s constructive. Discipline, as it was proposed by the interviewer, seems to be not only a synonym for punishment, but also a synonym for correction. And certainly these are not things that work well together. That approach is not a constructive manner of child guidance. Punishment, was the other word that my wonderful ECE professor defined the first day of class for us. She defined it as imposing pain or hurt - be it emotional or physical. I was glad to hear Diane Levy also point out ways in which punishment is counterproductive.

Now, Ms. Diane Levy and her interviewer immediately turned the conversation about discipline into a conversation about “venting.” Venting is another fascinating concept. Both women seemed to agree that venting is “human nature.” I take issue with that perspective. First of all, it depends on the personality type. Some people like to go into a sort of quiet existential state of mind in order to think about things, and puzzle stuff out. Others need to be more passionate, and they may need to curse as part of the process of coming to attention in regards to a negative thing that they have observed or heard about. Those who would think of themselves as humanists will probably be those who need to curse privately sometimes, because otherwise they risk brushing over and not focusing on learning about the more unpleasant things around them in their world; and that would lead to a very an unwise and foolish kind of simplemindedness. Now, cursing privately is not the same thing as berating a person publically. I think that there is never a need to be angry to someone else in an emotional manner. Cursing has no utility whatsoever as a manner of social discourse. I caught myself chuckling to myself upon hearing Diane Levy’s words she related as she would say them to a child: “You don’t use that language around me;” I mused about my notion that in my estimation, the operative words in that sentence would have been ‘around me.’ I think Ms. Levy also recognizes the value of being indignant and alarmed sometimes.

Now children, of course, do need to be given some license to have emotional outbursts around adults… those moments are very vital for adults to see. I consider it a privilege to see a kid have an outburst. Indeed, to see this kind of thing, is to see the inside of that child’s mind and heart in a very intimate manner. After watching a child’s outburst, I have the opportunity to engage my mind and plan a strategy for working with the child and her parent in respect to that area the child is upset about. I confess that this is very exciting to me in some sense; from my perspective it’s a moment which is similar to when an architect lays out the blueprints, as he gets ready to break ground for a new building.

Of course, a child ought never to be abusive towards an adult. And most outbursts won’t be that way, unless there’s a power struggle which is ongoing. A child who realizes that the amount of opportunities she gets, and the amount of nurture she gets, go down in direct proportion to how shoddily she treats her parents will try her utmost to be amicable.

So in summary, if there’s a power struggle going on between the parent and the child… there’s a problem - and the parent should recognize that he or she is, in part, responsible for this tension. And I was very saddened to see how this otherwise wonderfully wise woman equivocated around that point. Even though she has sage advice in many areas… the general thrust of her opinion was that power struggles are natural and to be expected as a part of daily life with one’s kids. And, to be frank, I would say that is a very flawed narrative of how parenting ought to be.

In the usa, people tend to look at the world in very simple terms. They will believe that one should follow the recommendations of the “professionals” in every case. In fact, that’s often not a good course. One should think critically and independently about the world. This is true also when it comes to matters of personal health.

As in many areas, Canadians seem to be much more wise about these things. Here’s a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast which looks at the dangers of prescreening people - specifically screening men for prostate cancer.

• Listen to the hour long podcast