Your DNA Unlocks Secrets

It is fashionable these days to have your DNA examined. I did so in 2011 out of curiosity. I keep the results on my computer screen for periodic review and reflection.

I was born in the island of Sicily. The island, over the millennia, has been a stopping place for many adventurers, colonizers, and conquerors. It is a well-documented fact that it was invaded 17 times. Each left behind his calling card in its collective DNA.

Highlights of My DNA Report

I chose DNA Tribes for my analysis. The report includes four sections:

·      Generic Profile

·      Native Population Match

·      Global Population Match

·      World Region Match

The highlights of my DNA profile:

·      My ancestors were European and Near-Easterner.

·      My ancestors were primarily Basques, Spaniards, and Greek Cypriots, and secondarily, Romanians, Turks, and Portuguese.

·      My profile includes a smidgen of Israeli Arab, Jewish, Venetian, and French.

·      My ancestors were primarily Mediterranean and Levantine (Aegean), and secondarily North African, Mesopotamian, North and Eastern European, and Arabian.

·      I have no markers that connect me to Australia’s Aborigines, Sub-Sahara Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Polynesia.

At this point, you might say: So What? What does it mean? What did you learn that you did not already know?

So What?

Besides satisfying my curiosity, I found answers to a couple questions. Why my brothers and I do not match the stereotypical looks of a Sicilian: Black hair, dark skin, and on the short side? Why my mother and youngest brother were fair skinned and with blue eyes? My middle brother has green eyes.

On a more serious vein, I reviewed Sicily’s history and I did find the following possible connections:

·      The Sicanians, a people that came to Sicily from the Iberian Peninsula, colonized Sicily around 4,000 B.C. They came long before the Sikels from Italy, the Phoenicians from Lebanon, and the Greeks from throughout the Aegean. Are the Sicanians my forbearers? Possibly.

·      The Greeks started to arrive in Sicily in mass around 750 B.C. The Elymnians were Greeks from Asia Minor (now Turkey). Many came from the Greek islands as well. Did they contribute to my DNA stew? Possibly.

·      The Phoenicians (and its descendants the Carthaginians) began to set up trading outposts along the island’s coastline around the 1,000 B.C. Were they part of my connection to the Levant (Mesopotamian and Arabian) and Cyprus? Possibly.

·      The Arabs came from North Africa around 800 A.D. They would remain in Sicily for two centuries. Are they my connection to North Africa? I remember an uncle from my mother’s family say that we had Berber ancestors. Possibly.

·      The Spaniards (primarily Aragonese) wrestled control of Sicily around the 1,300 A.D. and they held control over Sicily until the unification of Italy in 1860. Is it during this wave that my ancestors found their way from the Iberian Peninsula? Possibly.

The amazing thing for me is that, through DNA analysis, I can connect some dots by overlaying the historical map of the island.

There is still an unresolved question regarding my DNA connection to the Iberian Peninsula. The Sicanian or Aragonese? I will let the mystery rest. It is a detail of inconsequential nature.

I remember vividly a strange episode during my visit to Toledo with my wife some 30 years ago. I was waiting in a café for Cassandra to finish her third tour of the El Greco Museum.

Sitting there, sipping my drink, I had some kind of epiphany. I felt that I had been there before, in a previous life. I told this to Cassandra when she joined me. She smiled and deadpanned: What have you been drinking? I responded seriously that I even had the sensation of wearing heavy, dark green wool clothes, military clothes. She smiled … and we moved on.  Coincidence, premonition or the after effect of the strong drink?

I have been to Spain numerous times during the past 35 years. I have always felt at home there. I like the regional cuisine, especially the Basque, the preference for fresh ingredients, and the many men’s clubs devoted to cooking. I also encounter many folks who resemble my extended family.

I spent 5 years in the Middle East; and during the last two, I lived in the Gulf region. During my many visits to Lebanon, I often came across dishes that my mon used to make for us and fish selection similar to the one in Sicily. Affectionately, many Arab friends would call me cousin in recognition of the Arab presence in Sicily. I felt right at home in the region.

In Closing

Knowing your DNA is more than what percentage of this or that you are. It is a key to understanding the meandering nature of man. Migrating from place to place in search of better conditions or more opportunities … economic, climactic, religious, marital, and so forth.  

It provides clues to when and where our ancestors might have intermingled with other groups, giving birth to a more diverse stock. It satisfies our curiosity to have an idea regarding from whence we come from.

The Politics of Poverty

Recently, as I was surfing through the TV channels, I ran into a discussion on C-SPAN that caught my interest. The AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C hosted the conference by the National Economic Association.  Darrick Hamilton, the CEO of the association, facilitated the discussion.

Leading economists were the presenters. They shared with the audience their research findings on a number of topics ranging from incarceration to militarization of the police, to unemployment.

I came away intrigued by several proposals to solve the problems under discussion. In particular, the call for a federal job guarantee for everyone able to work, the elimination, in other words, of involuntary unemployment, and the setting up of a baby trust account of $ 20,000 to shield each child from poor decisions by parents.

Flashback to Graduate School

I recall vividly two important lessons from graduate school, lessons that shaped my own approach to organization consulting throughout my working career.

Lesson one came in a statistics class. The instructor told us that statistics are interesting by what they reveal, but they are limited by what they hide, perhaps more vital. In other words, he encouraged us to always look beyond the obvious and explore the other side.

Lesson two came during my dissertation defense. One of the Ph.D. committee members asked me a question that had me stumped for a minute. I had used a questionnaire to gather responses to a number of policy questions I was researching.  His question was: “Tony, what question you did not ask that perhaps was more important than those you asked?” After colleting myself, I humbly replied that I did not know, and acknowledged a limitation of my research.

I did not realize until recently why I have been interested in hearing both sides of an argument, shunning the notion that one ideology has all the answers and none of the downside. Some folks might label me a skeptic, bordering on the pessimist; I defend myself by invoking realism. I guess you, the reader, will be the one to judge.

Income Inequality

This issue is a significant one in America. How can we in the land of plenty permit economic inequality? The statistics are staggering! The average income of the 99% in 1998 was $ 48,768. The average income of the remaining 1% was $ 1.36 million or 22% of all income generated in the country. These statistics depict a disproportionate, and I might add, gross example of inequality.

I drilled down to a study by the University of Michigan (UofM) regarding extreme poverty. This study concluded that the average person in extreme poverty receives $ 2 per day cash assistance. Shocking, to say the least!

C-SPAN came to my rescue once more. I tapped into a discussion about the problems with the survey methodology used by the UofM scholars.

The UofM researchers had apparently made the same mistake I had made as a graduate student. They failed to ask the most important question. In this case, how much does the person in extreme poverty spend per day? The answer, they found, was $ 20 per day. How can this be possible? The UofM study had focused on just one source of income and overlooked that there are all together 80 programs that provide assistance to the poor. They also found that those classified as extreme poor had a television set, a computer, a mobile phone, and more square footage in their residence than before. Obviously, you could not do all this on $ 2 per day.

By now you should be as confused as I was. What is the real story? Who do we believe? Anyone?

Since the 1960’s America has spent trillions on its war on poverty. Yet the number of poor people has not significantly diminished. Although some folks have surely gained by this largesse.

Experts tell us that the problem is not going away any time soon. In fact, it is probably going to get worse. Globalization is forcing lower level workers to compete with 3 billion other people for jobs and wages. College educated men will tend to marry college educated women. Single parent families will surely become poorer.

A Question of Self-Interest

I think it was Freud that taught us that all interest is self-interest, and that all behavior is motivated. Obviously, the researchers in the UofM study had an agenda, and so did those who basically demolished their findings. In this Ping-Pong game of gotchas, the average person is left bewildered and confused. 

See, the average person wants to know what to believe. Politicians to promote their agenda will cherry pick research, which proves their point ignoring the research that disproves it.

We are all created equal, but no two people are alike. Some are more intelligent, others more motivated, others harder workers, and son. Hence, there is resistance to adopt socialistic or communist practices, long discredited. Income redistribution by taxation has long term unintended consequences because wealthy people are able to move money overseas and reach markets world-wide.

Where We Go From Here?

We need to resolve this issue with a sense of urgency. I am not sure that politicians left to their own devices will do it correctly. They will pander to their constituencies currying favor and hopefully more votes in the process. They will set one group against another; choosing winners and losers, and seeding further division and distrusts. They will take the short view and overlook the unintended consequences. They will kick the proverbial can down the road.

We need to examine further the structural and systemic causes that entrap people and families in poverty. We know what some of the causes are: break-up of the family unit, lack of good education, disappearance of jobs more efficiently performed by machines, shift of jobs to low cost areas, crime, and drug abuse.

We need a bi-partisan approach. This is a “wicked” problem, meaning that there are no technical answers or experts, that no one group alone can solve it, and that there might not even be an immediate solution.

Things are not as bad or as good as our politicians want us to believe

The quadrennial political orgies are over. I don’t know how many millions are spent every four years on this anachronistic spectacle. I can appreciate the utility of this mechanism some 150 or so years when it was difficult communicating in a vast country such as ours.  But now we have television, Internet, and intelligent phones.

People wearing funny hats, homemade signs and slogans, people dressed in strange ways, balloons falling down. Give me a break!

We are told that conventions are intended to energize supporters and build momentum. I wish they could be shortened to just one day. Four days is three days too long. Nominate candidates in the morning and then have the speeches in the afternoon. 

Not many people are listening to the numerous speakers anyway … they are drowned out by the multitude of folks milling around while the networks interrupt with advertisements.

Instant analyses ad nauseam by partisan pundits and so-called political strategists currently accompany this interminable show. 

What follows is a summary of three different views of the current situation.

The Optimists’ View

• ·      Unemployment down to 5% - 15 million jobs added
• ·      25 million people have health insurance
• ·      Stock market has recovered
• ·      Car industry is thriving
• ·      Fewer combat troops on the ground 
• ·      Interest rates never been so low
• ·      Housing industry on the rebound

The Pessimists’ View

• ·      Lowest worker participation rate
• ·      95 million people not working
• ·      Record national debt
• ·      Fight against terrorism not going as well
• ·      Stagnant middle class wages
• ·      Most jobs created are low wages
• ·      Foreign policy in disarray
• ·      Healthcare costs continue to rise rapidly
• ·      70% say country is on the wrong track
• ·      2/3 of Americans do not trust our candidates
• 
  

The Realists’ View

• ·      Heads in the sand 
• ·      Choice between two flawed candidates
• ·      Civil strife due to injustices and inequalities
• ·      Faulty assumptions about democracy
• ·      People tired of Political Correctness (PC)
• ·      Finger pointing by both parties
• ·      Paris, San Bernardino, Miami, Nice, Istanbul, Munich

OK! What then?

There are many topics that could receive bi-partisan support.

Whomever wins in November should learn from the past. Avoid starting off the gate with divisive initiatives. Build consensus. Start with trust building measures!

Had Obama done that seven and one had years ago, he would have had a greater chance of unifying the country.

Here are eleven suggestions (not in order of importance):

• ·      Reform our tax code 
• ·      Reform our justice system
• ·      Approve a tuition-free in-state university education  
• ·      Enable refinancing of college loans
•     Modernize our infrastructure  
•     Mend or replace Obama Care  
•     Invest in job creation
•     Take action on Wall Street 
•     Strengthen Social Security and Medicare 
•     Increase minimum wage 
•     Fix the Immigration System

• 
  

If we could tackle most of these issues during the next four years, we would all be better off.

What Not to Do

Here are some straightforward things we need to do less of:

• ·      Demonizing or ridiculing those who disagree with us.
• ·      Finger pointing to reap cheap political points.
• ·      Lying to the American people.
• ·      Scapegoating ALL immigrants or Islam.
•  ·

Learning from Experts

Experts tell us that there are two kinds of problems in front of us. One set of problems can be labeled tame in the sense that there are specific technical solutions and technical experts available to us.  There are also a number of problems that can be labeled wicked. Wicked problems have no off-the shelf solutions or experts. In fact, there might not even be solutions.

Best way to solve wicked problems is not to rely on so-called experts or one party, but to involve as many constituencies as possible in developing solutions or remedies.  Here is a partial list of wicked problems:

• ·      Violence in the inner cities
• ·      Fixing the healthcare system
• ·      Immigration reform
• ·      Strengthening the family structure
• ·      Reducing crime
• ·      Job creation
• ·      Election reforms

We cannot afford to settle the next generation with problems of our own creation. We must hand over an improved system, not a broken one. And, in the process, practice more civility and respect for each other.

Your views?