I have a confession. The obituaries are perhaps the part of the newspaper I enjoy reading most.

Why? I can think of many reasons. Obituaries celebrate a life well lived. They return history to a human scale, reminding us that history is not shaped by emperors, generals, or queens alone, but also by ordinary people against the backdrop of large-scale events. Most importantly, for me, obituaries tell stories — stories of human experience, of triumphs over personal tragedy, of love.

Sometimes they offer lessons, too. I was charmed by this one on the law from the Boston Globe obituary for legal scholar and authority on comparative legal history Harold J. Berman. He described himself as a law student from an early age “like all children”, since children instinctively grasp the basic principles of law:

“A child says, ‘It’s my toy.’ That’s property law,” he said. “A child says, ‘You promised me.’ That’s contract law. A child says, ‘He hit me first.’ That’s criminal law. A child says, ‘Daddy said I could.’ That’s constitutional law.”

(To which I would add, a child says, “Let’s take turns.” That’s dispute resolution.)

I remain haunted by last week’s images of lawyers protesting in the streets of Lahore. Their defiant response to Musharraf’s declaration of martial law reminds us of how integral the rule of law is to a functioning democracy.

How might we honor law’s place in delivering justice and safeguarding human rights? How can we recognize the importance of law and its institutions?

Garrett Epps, writing for The Nation, proposes that “We Need a Nobel Prize in Law“.

I, for one, agree.

For a stirring reminder of why the rule of law matters, read the text of the 1958 radio address by then American Bar Association president Charles Rhyne announcing the enactment of Law Day, a “day of national dedication to the principle of government under law”. May 1, 2008, incidentally, marks Law Day’s 50th anniversary.

If public opinion is anything to go by, conflict resolution is for sissies. If that’s the case, then maybe it’s time to give the public what it really wants: advice on how to escalate conflict.

I therefore offer 5 steps guaranteed to transform any molehill into a mountain:

1. Ignore facts. Disregard or suppress all evidence that undermines your position. In fact, facts can be trouble — they might raise doubt among your supporters, or, even worse, persuade them or even you that your opponent just might have a point. Take precautions by surrounding yourself with servile bootlickers who will tell you only what you want to hear.

2. Make stuff up. If you can’t find facts to support your position, just invent some. Rumor and innuendo are your friends. Remember, appeals to emotion, with no basis in reason, work best.

3. Make assumptions — lots of them. This is important. Assume first that you’re right and they’re wrong. Assume you need no further information (see Step #1 above). In addition, assume you know what they’re thinking. Attribute malicious motives to your opponent especially if there is no evidence to support that assumption. It’s fun to make them have to prove a negative.

4. Exaggerate the harm. Draw false analogies — the more improbable and exaggerated the better. Even if the issue concerns something minor (and admittedly most interpersonal problems are), compare your opponents to Nazis and the impact of their actions on you to the Holocaust. Accuracy isn’t important here — conveying your sense of injustice and wounded pride is the effect you’re going for.

5. Get personal. Attack your opponent’s character or physical appearance, not his or her arguments. Seek out every opportunity to impugn their credibility, their intelligence, their grasp of facts, their patriotism, or all four for extra bonus points. If possible, insult their parents, spouses, children, or pets, along with their social status, religion, and dietary habits.

These proven methods get results with family, co-workers, neighbors, bloggers, political opponents, or anyone you can’t stand. Try them today and you’ll be “getting to no” in no time!

This one seemed appropriate for Halloween, which happens to be today.

Cognitive Daily recently asked readers, “Will humans marry robots in 50 years?”

Given the fact that people (or rather their avatars) are hooking up and even getting married in virtual worlds (sometimes to the hurt and disappointment of real-world spouses), this may not be too far-fetched a question to ask.

Halloween has always been one of my favorite holidays. It provides a great excuse to buy chocolate — by the bag in fact. Plus no hours spent slaving over a hot stove, no need to shop for gifts (or wait in endless lines to return any), and no family feuds to mediate. What’s not to like?

It’s the one holiday that I unfailingly observe here at Online Guide to Mediation. So, in keeping with tradition, here are some Halloween-related links for your reading pleasure:

Start with my posts for Halloween 2005 and 2006, “Ghost of a chance: three ways mediators can celebrate Halloween” and “High spirits: legal issues can arise on sale of haunted houses“.

Bone up on “Witchcraft and the Law” with this bibliography from the LSU Law Library.

Play “Halloween Party“, a board game involving “crafty negotiation” and bluffing.

Or, get philosophical with “The Story of The Devil and Daniel Webster as a Post–modern Allegory to Individualism in Negotiation“. (Requires a subscription to download in PDF but cunning Googlers can access an HTML version of the article.)

Just be sure to save some 3 Musketeers bars for me.

(Photo credit: Nicolas Raymond.)

Here is Online Guide to Mediation’s latest round-up of links for mediators:

From Bob Sutton is a link to a video by a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford who takes an honest look at “why we’d rather lie than be associated with failure“.

George Lenard points to “Top Small Workplaces 2007“, which reveals what successful small businesses do to motivate, develop, and retain their employees.

For conflict resolution trainers, mediation training videos from UK Mediation Ltd. depict the stages of a workplace dispute from initial flare-up to agreement, courtesy of Bill Warters.

Boing Boing reports on the latest customer relations snafu by a large corporation: AT&T punishes consumers for speaking out on the web.

At Not Exactly Rocket Science, learn how “Genes affect our likelihood to punish unfair play“.

Thanks to Diana Skaggs, learn “What Price Does The Company Pay In An Executive’s Divorce Or Custody Battle? Without Some Forethought, A Hefty One“–which I think could be used to support the argument that employee assistance programs should include mediation services among their offerings.

Vickie Pynchon urges readers to haggle when it comes to purchasing consumer goods, and points to No More Haggling, a company that seeks to capitalize on the American aversion to negotiating.

Finally, a project in Jerusalem uses the power of the stage to encourage Jewish and Arab audiences to hear the other side of the story.

Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich has cut almost $500 million of “‘pork’ and non-essential spending” from the state’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget.

Unfortunately these cuts included funding for a gang mediation program aimed at reducing conflicts and violence in the city’s neighborhoods.

Some day, some day, political leaders will view conflict resolution as an essential service. Hey, a mediator can dream…

(Photo by Clarissa Rossarola.)

Can you smell the desperation in the air? That’s a sure sign that a major election year is rapidly approaching and at least one political party is getting nervous. Consider the following.

Recently I received a voice mail from the office of U.S. Congressman Tom Cole and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The message informed me that the NRCC wished to “recognize [you] with our highest honor, the Congressional Order of Merit” and asked me to call.

A Congressional Order of Merit? For me? How could I refuse?

The staff person who answered the phone told me that as part of being singled out for this honor, I’d also been invited to serve on a business advisory council, and she asked me to listen first to a recorded message from Congressman Cole before she provided me with further details.

The message was most instructive. I learned that small businesses like mine “are the backbone of our community”. I learned that Democrats think I’m “rich and don’t pay [my] fair share of taxes”, and that I could play an important role in combating their “anti-business agenda”. I also learned that small business owners like me are “the last line of defense against the liberal agenda”. Finally, I learned that Tom Cole and the National Republican Congressional Committee needed my help.

At the end of the message, the staff person asked me if I had any questions. I asked her how much it would cost to take part. She told me that there was no cost–only my participation on the advisory council.

As tempting as the opportunity was, I had to come clean. I confessed that by no stretch of the imagination could I be characterized as a supporter of Republican political causes. I asked how they selected my name in the first place. She sidestepped that last question but hastily reassured me that Democrats and Independents could serve on the council as well.

I regretfully declined the honor.

Which meant, alas, no Congressional Order of Merit for me.

(Just for fun, try googling the phrase “Congressional Order of Merit”. I did. It yielded the news that the NRCC has extended this prestigious-sounding but meaningless honor to numerous others, including a former Democratic congresswoman and National Public Radio science correspondent Ira Flatow. I wait breathlessly to see what honor the Democrats next have planned for me.)

Nothing is more divisive in America today than its politics.

But it’s not the lines in the sand we should worry about. The Redistricting Game, an online game developed for the USC Annenberg Center for Communication, shows us that it’s the lines that define congressional districts that should concern us. According to the web site,

The Redistricting Game is designed to educate, engage, and empower citizens around the issue of political redistricting. Currently, the political system in most states allows the state legislators themselves to draw the lines. This system is subject to a wide range of abuses and manipulations that encourage incumbents to draw districts which protect their seats rather than risk an open contest.

By exploring how the system works, as well as how open it is to abuse, The Redistricting Game allows players to experience the realities of one of the most important (yet least understood) aspects of our political system.

(With a hat tip to The Map Room for the link.)

There comes a point in a mediation when it’s time to ask the hard questions.

It often happens when negotiations are stalled. Although a decent offer is on the table, one thing stands between the parties and settlement. “Principle. It’s the principle of the thing,” they say, as they weigh hope at trial against certainty at the table.

At that point I may ask people to do something that is very difficult to do.

I ask them to think for a moment about the future–to imagine their future selves and to ask themselves, will that decision still be the right one for me then?

Unfortunately, the laws of physics prevent us from speaking directly to our future selves. But a web site has made it possible for anyone to send messages to the person they will be tomorrow. All you need is an email address that will hopefully still be active on the date of delivery.

Futureme.org allows visitors to send messages that will be delivered electronically to themselves at a designated future date. Visitors to the site can scroll through the public messages at random to read the dispatches from the past that await delivery–some hopeful, some filled with profanity, some bearing advice, others poignant. Here are two:

Because you were working on your thesis and went through that Roman Stoicism phase and tend to forget who said what and where all the ideas come from:

“Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.”

Marcus Aurelius

p.s. Finish the book and jog more

. . . . . .

Dear FutureMe,

First off, what the hell are you doing still using gmail?

Second, I’m really surprised that I’m still alive. I’d have expected the stress of working 100 hours a week would have killed me by now. I mean, seriously, what are the odds of a human being actually surviving for 30 years on Ramen noodles and day old pizza?

Oh well, I hope things have turned out well for me.

You can send yourself a message at Futureme.org.

So, what would you say to your future self?

American lawyers by now may be inured to media attacks on the legal profession. We expect it from Fox News. But this week lawyers drew fire from an unexpected source: a National Public Radio broadcast.

On Point, a week-day radio news magazine produced by NPR member station WBUR in Boston, broadcast a show this week titled “Verdict on American Lawyers“. From the show’s description:

America’s legal profession is based on ideals: on standards of education and admission to the practice, ethics regulation, a disregard for commercialism and on working on behalf of the public good. The legal system is rooted in the belief that all should have access to justice. But Yale Law Professor and legal historian, [sic] says it’s not so. The profession is hardly professional anymore. He says lawyers today are out for their own economic self-interest…

Instead of providing what could have been a rich discussion about the present and future of the legal profession, with points and counterpoints from a spectrum of voices, On Point succeeded in reinforcing for its listeners virtually every negative stereotype that exists about American lawyers today. It perpetuated the myth that all lawyers work for large firms on behalf of shady corporate interests and are members of an Ivy-educated elite motivated solely by self-interest and greed.

The show’s greatest defect was its failure to accurately and fully depict today’s legal profession in all its diversity. This one-sided portrayal of a legal profession in moral decline ignored the numerous efforts that have contributed to the improvement of law and the institutions that serve it. And it disregarded the movements within the profession that seek to deliver justice better and provide effective mechanisms for the resolution of disputes.

There are plenty of attorneys today who are trailblazers, breaking new ground through movements like collaborative law and restorative justice. These attorneys are bold architects of new ways of serving the public and justice better.

And how can a show that purported to examine the legal profession and access to justice fail to discuss one of the most important revolutions in the courts and in the practice of law: the widespread availability and institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution?

As an attorney who no longer practices traditional law but has spent the past decade as a mediator helping people resolve disputes both within and outside of the legal system, I have many colleagues in the bar who are committed to these kind of innovations in the practice of law and the resolution of disputes. Many are outspoken advocates of these new ways of thinking and work to transform and reinvigorate the practice of law.

Many of them strive to illuminate for the legal profession as well as the public the art and creativity within the practice of law and to help attorneys reclaim the dignity and meaning in what is still an honorable profession.

You may hear “Verdict on American Lawyers” in a number of formats at the On Point web site and judge for yourself.

By now many of you, including those living outside the U.S., have heard of the murder this week of 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech by a lone gunman, a Virginia Tech student who turned the gun on himself and died also. It was the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

Some of you as well may have heard also of the One Day Blog Silence, the blogosphere’s latest meme, which calls on bloggers everywhere to be silent on April 30 to honor the Virginia Tech victims:

All you have to do is spread the word about it and post the graphic on your blog on 30th April 2007. No words and no comments. Just respect, reflect and empathy.

The day of blog silence has been extended to include “all the victims of our world”–which I assume to mean all those who have also perished by violence.

What I am about to say intends no disrespect to the many good-intentioned bloggers–including those who are my friends and colleagues–who are participating in the April 30 event. It certainly in no way is meant to diminish the heart-breaking tragedy of these senseless deaths.

But I have to ask, why? Why be silent? What is the point? Why not use this as an opportunity to speak out? To rage against the machine? To stand up for whatever cause you believe in that will reduce human suffering or end violence? Provide better treatment and interventions for the mentally ill? Increase safety on college campuses? Take action against handgun violence? End the war in Iraq? The crisis in Darfur? Any one of the thousand conflagrations that burn around the world?

Or, better yet, get away from the keyboard and actually do something?

It will be business as usual at this blog on Monday, April 30. I won’t be silent.

Here in Massachusetts, although technically it’s Tuesday, today is our work week Monday. How come? Yesterday was Patriots’ Day, a state holiday which commemorates the battles of Lexington and Concord in the American Revolutionary War (and not New England’s favorite football franchise).

Therefore, here’s a Monday-style work-day distraction for mediators: a video of two chickens breaking up a fight between two rabbits.

(Hat tip to Kottke.org.)

Recently I looked at why the world–or least America–has not yet gotten to yes. I described the cultural forces that resist mightily the logic and common sense of principled negotiation and are deeply distrustful of peacebuilding, collaboration, and dialogue.

I offer you yet one more example: a transcript of right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s comments on a recently released study on workplace bullying.

Here’s a sample–and it’s classic Limbaugh all the way:

There’s nothing new in any of this and all of these are obstacles that countless gazillions of people have overcome throughout life in the history of human civilization. Study Reveals Widespread Office Bullying! I know exactly what this is. I know exactly. It’s a bunch of liberals behind this, a bunch of pantywaist, limp-wristed, linguini-spined liberals who are out there trying to work their magic and reorder the basic tenets of human nature, which is largely what a lot of liberalism attempts to do.

I’d add more, but these limp wrists make it awfully hard to type.

Having written about bystander nonintervention just last week, I have my own bystander experience to describe to you.

She swayed unsteadily on her feet, leaning hard against the door to the subway car. In swollen red hands, she clutched a bottle of Dr. Pepper and a plastic shopping bag. Her fingers fumbled clumsily at the handles of the plastic bag, try to shift its weight off her wrist. She tried to lift a stubbed-out cigarette butt to her lips, but there was something wrong with her aim–she kept missing her mouth until finally she gave up.

A row of nickel-plated rivets marched up the sides of her bellbottom jeans. She was about the age of my 20-year-old son.

And that’s when I realized that she was high.

As the train sped along, her eyes closed as she leaned back against the door, rocking with the motion of the car. Slowly, slowly, her head nodded and then fell far forward. Just as the rest of her was about to follow, she snapped her head up, waking in time to pull herself up. Her mouth hung open.

All the way past Maverick and Airport she swayed, her head falling forward, eyes shut tight, nodding off and losing balance, then jerking upright. Just when I thought she’d collapse in a heap on the subway car floor, some internal force would shake her and pull her up. The other passengers either ignored her or pointed at her, laughing quietly among themselves. The woman next to me met my eyes and shook her head in disapproval.

I was about to stand to offer her my seat at least, insist she sit down, when some homing instinct alerted her that her stop was next. The train stopped, the doors slid open, and she stumbled outside onto the platform. As the doors closed, and the train pulled away, she stood looking dazed as if uncertain where she was and thinking was too great an effort. She leaned against a metal fence and sank to the platform, her eyes closed. That was the last I saw of her.

I was the only one who watched her leave.

For the rest of the ride home and well into the evening, and even now, days later, I asked myself what I should have done. I had sat there, watching as this woman, this girl really, my son’s age, placed herself in harm’s way. I had sat there, wondering what to do, paralyzed by indecision. A thousand things went through my mind. Did she need medical attention? How would she get home? Did she even have a home? Despite the rough-looking hands, her nails bore signs of a recent manicure and her eyebrows were painstakingly plucked. She must have had a home. But would she get there safely? In that state she was vulnerable–to sexual assault, physical abuse, worse. I wanted to do something, but I didn’t know what.

And to tell you the truth, I was afraid. If I’d offered to help somehow, would she have turned angry, violent even? What if somehow I made things worse?

But this was someone’s daughter, someone’s sister. There but for the grace of God go any of us or anyone we love.

At what point should we cease being bystanders? At what point do we take responsibility for others? At what point do we get involved?

And why do I feel the need to assert my own anti-bystander credentials in telling you this story? I am the kind of person who stops at accident scenes on highways to render aid and give the homeless along Park Street money, coffee, and food. I have come to the rescue of lost toddlers in shopping malls and runaway dogs in the street.

So why was this different? Why did I do nothing this time? And what will I do next time?

What about you? What will you do?

Will you stand by? Or will you stand up?

Respected dispute resolution scholar and pioneer Carrie Menkel-Meadow recently posed an important question for our field in her essay “Why Hasn’t the World Gotten to Yes? An Appreciation and Some Reflections” (downloadable in PDF).

In it Professor Menkel-Meadow pauses to consider the enduring legacy of Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Roger Fisher and William Ury’s influential work which laid out a common-sense approach for effective negotiation that stresses satisfaction of interests, mutual gains, joint problem-solving, and the use of objective criteria to create fair deals.

The full title of the book should be noted: “Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” (emphasis mine). In other words, this book does not stand for weak-willed capitulation. On the contrary. Principled negotiation is designed to prevent the exploitation of one side by the other. It encourages negotiators to keep their eyes wide open–to be trustworthy but not trusting–and prepares them to bargain from a position of strength.

Yet this model for negotiation remains widely misunderstood and even maligned, especially here in the U.S., where we are fond of asserting that “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” and the word “collaboration” evokes not teamwork but the Vichy regime.

Consider for example what conservative commentator Michelle Malkin had to say a couple of years ago about peer mediation:

The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation’s resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on “non-violent conflict resolution” and “promoting constructive dialogues.”

As irrational as these objections may sound to those of us who work in the dispute resolution field, we dismiss them at our peril. They are widely held.

To understand these objections more fully, listen to a story that aired this weekend on National Public Radio, “Peace Proposal Rattles Small Town“. It describes the hell that broke loose when a women’s club in a small Minnesota city persuaded the city council to pass a resolution endorsing a proposed congressional bill that would create a United States Department of Peace and promote the use of conflict resolution and negotiation. Public condemnation of the city council vote came swiftly, and, in the face of mounting opposition, the city council rescinded the resolution following a heated public hearing.

So why the objections? Quite a few viewed the bill (which many had apparently never bothered to read) as an attack on U.S. sovereignty, believing it would place the United States under the full control of the United Nations. Some condemned the Department of Peace as an instrument of communism. Others claimed that a Department of Peace would signal to our enemies that Americans are weaklings afraid to fight–”wusses” in the word of one citizen interviewed by the NPR reporter.

Peace, in other words, is for sissies.

That is the challenge that our profession faces. Until we can persuade the skeptics that principled negotiation and conflict resolution are smart, tough, strategic choices, we’ll never get the world–or at least our neighbors right here at home–to yes.

“Change your thoughts and you change your world,” said Norman Vincent Peale. But he was obviously not reckoning on today’s political culture, which seems resistant to change–at least when it comes to minds.

Despite the results of the 2006 midterm elections here in the U.S., American politicians and pundits continue to laud the virtues of “staying the course” as sound strategy for political success–and not just when it comes to the Iraq war, but to all kinds of issues. Consistency, congruity, unswerving loyalty not just to people but chiefly to ideas and causes–these hold high value in American politics and culture.

There is no greater insult in America today than “flip-flopper”, a label anyone with political ambitions is eager to avoid. It’s as if the act of changing one’s mind as the result of reasoned self-reflection is somehow as shameful, as, say, lying about sex with an intern, rather than a mark of maturity and character.

Certainly anyone who changes their views with the prevailing wind as a matter of political expediency deserves our condemnation, as do those who fail to keep their promises, both political and otherwise.

But as a mediator I have to ask, what’s so great about consistency anyway? If you’re going in the wrong direction, what’s the problem with heading in a better one? When exactly did it get to be a bad thing to change your mind?

Maybe it’s because mediators see people change their minds all the time. A mediator, nudging disputants toward understanding, may help them walk around a problem, lift it up, turn it over, and examine it from all sides. We witness individuals gather new data, test their assumptions against that data, and reach very different conclusions from the ones they initially arrived with. We see them admit or address mistakes and make necessary course corrections. And watch how these acts open the door to new possibilities and greater gains.

As Charles Kettering once said, “Where there is an open mind there will always be a frontier.”

Although this blog is, generally speaking, not political in nature, on rare occasions I do weigh in on political issues when there is reason to do so.

I have a reason today.

To learn why, simply read on. If you prefer to skip this, no hard feelings.

No matter where you are in the world, you have probably read about last week’s vote by the U.S. Senate to pass the innocuously titled Military Commissions Act of 2006–a bill governing the detention and prosecution of terror suspects.

It is, of course, disastrous for what it means to U.S. standing in the world court of public opinion and to American democracy and justice. It broadly redefines who may be deemed an enemy combatant to now include permanent residents of the U.S., strips detainees of their right to challenge their detentions in court through the centuries-old mechanism of habeas corpus, denies detainees full access to the evidence against them, allows for the use of aggressive interrogation techniques, and immunizes the executive branch from prosecution.

Bad enough in the abstract. Consider for a moment what that means on a personal level.

My husband, a British national, has been a permanent resident of the U.S. since 1972. Since that time he has raised three children, all born here in the U.S. As a professor of law, he has educated and mentored thousands of American attorneys, and as a mediator and arbitrator has assisted countless people resolve difficult disputes. Like most of us here, he is a taxpayer. He has been a productive and contributing member of American society since he arrived here 34 years ago. The U.S. has been both physical and emotional home to him for a very long time.

That has all changed for him.

Now, under the bill the Senate passed, permanent residents like my husband could be detained. He would be unable to challenge his detention in court. I would be denied information about where he is being held. And he could be held indefinitely by the U.S. government.

For the first time since he arrived in the U.S., he no longer feels safe. His position here feels precarious and uncertain. This is not the America he first knew. It’s not, for that matter, the America I grew up in.

We don’t think we’re being paranoid. Not when you stop to consider that our elected leaders are regularly accused of a lack of patriotism or even treason simply for speaking out against the war in Iraq. And if that’s what members of Congress can look forward to, is it paranoia or just good common sense to wonder what might lead to detention for a mere permanent resident like my husband? One too many leftist letters to the editor of the local newspaper? An unguarded comment to his students about American constitutional law? A donation to the wrong charitable cause?

As one letter writer to the Boston Globe put it yesterday:

I grew up in Argentina during the rule of a military junta that disappeared more than 30,000 people. I know that when a president has the sole power to detain people he deems to be enemies, when he alone can set the rules for interrogation, when detained people don’t have the right to go to court, and when laws are written to immunize officials who have already committed torture, one is no longer living in a democracy but in a dictatorship.

The political is now personal. The question is, What will you and I do about it? Before it’s too late to ask, What can you and I do about it?

Regular readers may remember “What’s bugging us: Cockroaches rival humans in ability to make decisions as groups“, a post that signaled my return to blogging following a brief break.

I now return to blogging at the end of a similar break. Therefore, it seemed somehow fitting to do so with a post that explores a related theme. This one concerns not cockroaches, but an even lowlier lifeform: germs.

Not only do cockroaches work well in groups, but so, too, do bacteria, according to “A Biologist’s Listening Guide to Bacteria“, a recent story on National Public Radio, which featured an interview with Bonnie Bassler, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University, who has made some intriguing discoveries regarding marine bacteria.

Bassler’s work demonstrated the capacity of these tiny organisms to actually communicate with each other. In studies done on glow-in-the-dark bacteria, Bassler and her assistants learned that

It turns out that when one of these bacteria is all alone, it doesn’t glow. After all, that would be a waste of effort because nothing could ever see such a tiny amount of light. But it does send out chemical signals that say, hey I’m here … and it listens back for other bacteria sending the same signal.

When enough bacteria are doing this, they know they have a quorum. All of a sudden, they light up and do all sorts of other things to act in concert, like a super-organism.

“So they turn on and off 100 different genes, to let them turn off behaviors that are good when you’re alone and turn on genes that are good when you are a community. And for reasons we don’t understand, the gene that lets them make this beautiful blue light is one of the genes they turn on,” Bassler says.

Okay, folks, if cockroaches and bacteria can communicate and work together, what’s up with us humans? Hmmm?

Travel advisory: this post has nothing to do with mediation, negotiation, or the practice of law. It concerns itself solely with the peculiarities of the latest U.S. Transportation Security Administration regulations regarding carry-on items–which I got to see first hand during business travel earlier this week.

Mediators are keen observers of human behavior. We know from our observations that humans are rarely consistent. In fact, paradoxically, if there’s one factor that remains consistent from one conflict to the next, it’s that you can generally count on people to consistently behave in inconsistent ways.

Which may explain the current TSA regulations.

Now that Britain has foiled the latest terrorist plot, U.S. air travelers are adapting once again to brand-new security protocols, courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration.

Frequent fliers will be heartened to learn that at least as of today, August 24, 2006, meat cleavers, sabers, and ice picks continue to be prohibited items in carry-on luggage, even for travelers wishing to wield them in self-defense against freedom-hating terrorists. The same is true for firearms, cattle prods, brass knuckles, and dynamite. No surprises there.

There are, however, some anomalies. Corkscrews and knitting needles, which could certainly put someone’s eye out, remain permitted. Permitted also are pointed metal scissors with blades shorter than 4 inches in length–still long enough, if you ask me, to do some damage in the hands of any determined psychopath–along with screwdrivers that are seven inches or shorter.

Meanwhile, even though smoking has been banned on domestic flights for many years now, cigar cutters are permitted (although matches and lighters are not).

In addition, all liquids, gels, pastes, and lotions are now prohibited items in carry-on luggage here in the U.S. That means no beverages, Jello, or yogurt. And no shampoo, toothpaste, or perfume. (Which makes it all the more peculiar that corkscrews remain a permitted item. If you can’t bring on board that cheeky Merlot, what on earth do you need that corkscrew for?)

Personal lubricants (up to 4 ounces), however, are permitted (perhaps as a courtesy to members of the Mile High Club?).

So, feeling safer yet?

(A P.S. to the security screeners at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport–while I am grateful for your care in screening my shoes for chemical explosive residue, we both missed the tube of toothpaste that I’d forgotten to take out of my briefcase. I discovered it at 30,000 feet on the plane back to Boston. Oops.)