The 93-year-old woman was waiting in her car. The passenger door opened and her 67-year-old son got in. She asked him how it went and he said fine. The word and tone were familiar, as she had been hearing it from him for over 50 years.

She was driving because her son had lost his license after another DUI.

I learned about her case because a graduate student of mine was working with her. They were working on what happens to him when she dies.

Whenever I tell that story to a room full of families, I’m met with a mixture of gasps and stunned silence. Because so many of them see the ghost of Christmas future.

This is the cost of good intentions.

Enabling is doing something for someone that they should be doing for themselves or protecting someone from earned negative consequences.

It feels like love.
It often looks like loyalty.
It functions as avoidance.

There was a woman who had been in multi-family group for a couple of months. One day, seemingly out of the blue, she blurted out “I’m the chief enabler.”

She cried.

In groups over the next few months, when new parents introduced themselves, she would say “I’m Susan. I’m the Chief Enabler.”

The psychoeducation in multi-family group, Al-Anon attendance and her own therapy helped her towards recognizing her role and behaviors. One she saw it, she changed. And her son got better. Significantly and often lost in the tumult of a son in treatment, she got better too.

Enabling behavior includes:

• Giving money
• Paying legal fees.
• Defending their bad behavior.
• Calling employers with excuses.
• Making appointments.
• Opening mail.
• Listening to them gripe for two hours a day.
• Complaining about “how others treat them.”
• Lying to family members.
• Taking over responsibilities.
• Driving them after DUIs.
• Threatening consequences and not following through.
• Allowing them to live at home without expectations.

Every one of these lowers the cost of the addiction.

Every one of these delays their ability to see themselves clearly.

Meanwhile, the enabler often suffers through some combination of anxiety, resentment, embarrassment and identity collapse.

This is the social normalization of dysfunction. It can repeat multi-generational blue-red patterns.

It can lead to a 93-year-old woman driving her 67-year-old son around to his appointments.

---

Enabling is not compassion, forgiveness, patience or support.

Support says “I love you and I will not help you destroy yourself.”

In Al-Anon, parents, spouses and loved ones learn the three C’s:

1. I didn’t cause it.
2. I can’t control it.
3. I can’t cure it.

So, stop giving money. Stop defending their bad behavior. Stop listening to them gripe on the phone for two hours a day. Stop driving them around after a DUI. Stop threatening consequences and not following through.

If they crash, it may interrupt the illusion.

If you cushion, you extend it.

You cannot prevent all harm. You can stop participating in it.

Trust = Consistency × Time.

Short stretches of sobriety do not equal restored trust.

Boundaries are not cruelty. They are math.

If you value accountability,
your behavior must reflect it.

If you value dignity,
your behavior must reflect it.

If you value love,
your behavior must reflect it.

Live your values.

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in school, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.

---

A life concentrated in one environment is a life vulnerable to collapse.

The Hobby Matrix was created in an early recovery group at Hunterdon Drug Awareness in 2009 or 2010. People were there with six to 12 months sober. We were working on increasing their activities and friends. I saw that people leaned inside or outside, solo or group.

I started drawing four boxes on the board and asking people to mark where their time actually went. Most people were dominant in one or two areas. I almost never came across anyone who had multiple checks in all four boxes.

This was not about hobbies for fun.
It was about protective architecture.

Balance does not mean equal time. It means no quadrant is chronically empty.

---

How It Works

Draw four boxes.
Ask where time goes.
Look for zeros and clustering.
Increase breadth.

---

I treated a 17-year-old who spent nine hours a day watching short videos. He watched all day, every day. During school and well after midnight. He had drifted away from friends and activities.

Inside/Solo – dominant and unhealthy.
Everything else – empty.

Interventions:

Reach back out to friends from the neighborhood
Reach back out to kids on the academic team
Start playing baseball again
Go to the gym
Hike with his father
Watch movies

He went back to baseball. The gym started but was intermittent. Still, a win. He hung out with friends and made some new ones. He even went to a couple of parties, which alarmed his mother, but I told her it was a good thing.

---

A 33-year-old woman had a breakup over different views of having kids. She had spent the last two years on relationship island and alienated her friends. Shopping was a big coping skill that had gotten her into some financial problems. I was concerned about her possibly drinking to escape or seeking rebound relationships. The breakup happened in winter.

Inside/Solo – biggest risk.
Outside/Group – rebuilding required, hard in winter.
Inside/Group – reconnect with friends, avoid bars.
Outside/Solo – exercise is an underused strength, more likely in summer.

Book a solo trip for summer that is high on physical activity. Exercise two to three times a week to prepare for it. Reach out to friends and plan a few group activities.

---

Mid-20s woman. Social butterfly. Easily had two to four things to do each day on the weekend. Organized canoe trips, ax throwing, escape rooms, fancy dinners, concerts and dancing. During the weekday, just went back to her apartment and scrolled while watching television. She could not imagine going to a movie or restaurant by herself. Had no problem ordering take out almost every night.

Inside/Group – dominant, healthy.
Outside/Group – dominant, healthy.
Inside/Solo – empty.
Outside/Solo – empty.

The inability to eat alone is the key behavioral marker. Weekday solitude becomes dysregulating because it has never been trained. Try going to a restaurant by yourself. Don’t scroll. Bring a book.

---

A 57-year-old retired cop. No friends, no hobbies. “When I was on the job, people contacted me all the time. Now I know it was because they wanted something. I worked nights and weekends and crazy amounts of overtime. I gave up hunting and fishing in my 20s.”

Pre-retirement:

Inside/Solo – empty.
Inside/Group – co-workers.
Outside/Solo – gave up activities in 20s.
Outside/Group – built-in contacts, built-in structure.

Post-retirement:
Everything – empty.

Interventions:

Start fishing and hunting again
Look into fishing and hunting clubs
Consider volunteering. Ex-cops like to feel useful.
Consider return to religious services
Won’t do gym; would try swimming. Good for winter exercise.
Open to getting a dog
Suggested reaching out to other retired cops to start a breakfast group

He joined a hunting club. The following year, he went on a hunting trip to Montana. He went back to Church and found volunteer work with them. Another ex-cop organized a breakfast group and he went.

---

A life concentrated in one environment is a life vulnerable to collapse.

It is not about hobbies.

The Hobby Matrix does not require equal time in all four areas.
It does require at least one viable activity in each quadrant so no environment becomes unfamiliar

Which quadrant is empty? Which one dominates?

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in school, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.

---

Tr = C x Ti

Trust = Consistency x Time

If consistency is low, trust remains low, no matter how much time passes.

If time is short, trust remains low, no matter how sincere the behavior is.

Only when both increase does trust rise meaningfully.

Multiplication matters. Not addition.

---

I developed this in an outpatient group. Clients in early recovery complained

• “I’ve been sober for three weeks. Why don’t they trust me?”
• “It’s been six months. What else do they want?”
• “It’s been two years. Why are they still cautious?”

They confused improved mood, verbal remorse, insight, intentions and sobriety with trust.

The equation cut through it.

I originally wrote it as consistency over time. A client corrected me. “Divided doesn’t work. It’s multiplied.” He was right.

Trust is behavioral. Not emotional.

Hope. Love. Guilt. Fear.

None of these belong in the equation.

Only

• What do you consistently do;
• over how much time

Trust is rebuilt over small repeated behaviors. Over long stretches. Without drama.

You don’t earn back 10 years of broken trust in 90 days.

A client at three weeks sober:

• C = high
• Ti = extremely low

Multiplication keeps trust score low.

This helps families see they are not cruel or unforgiving. It shows they are rational.

A husband who has been caught texting other women three different times over an eight year marriage:

• C = low
• Ti = high

It shows she is rational.

---

Trust is not repaired by apology. It is repaired by predictable behavior over time.

I had a client who, in his addiction, burned his parents’ house down.

He talked about it in our first group. That was about ten years ago. His family came to multi-family group. It was his mother and stepfather – which added its own layer of tension and history. We didn’t go near the fire. We worked on the basics: staying sober, going to group, telling the truth, no drama.

The family kept coming.

At nine months sober, during a three chair exercise in the middle of the room, he apologized for burning the house down. It was touching and slightly funny at the same time. Every witness had the good grace not to laugh. There is no small way to say a sentence like that.

It mattered.

Over time, he was allowed to visit the new home. Trust was not restored because of the apology alone. It was rebuilt because of consistent behavior over consistent time.

• C = high
• Ti = medium

Trust returned slowly.

---

Students at Elizabeth once described a male social studies teacher as being “on the rag.” I was writing at the board when I heard it. I turned around.

“That is not appropriate.”

“Mister, he is. Some days he is easy going. Other days he comes in and it’s like his wife told him she wanted a divorce at breakfast. We never know what we are going to get.”

“Well, that’s a better way to put it.”

“With you we know what every day is going to be like.”

C = low
Ti = high

Trust remains low.

Time is the proof.
If you want trust, multiply.

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in school, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.

---

Every relationship you have ever had fits into one of three sets: Blue-Blue, Blue-Red or Red-Red.

Romance, family, work, strangers.

The Blue represents healthy behavior. The Red represents unhealthy behavior. Red behaviors include but are not limited to yelling, insults, breaking promises, public humiliation, lying and cheating.

Which relationship type is stable?

Blue-Blue is stable. I’m healthy to you, you are healthy to me.

But Red-Red is also stable. And stability does not equal health.

One cold December day I was walking in Elizabeth. I came up on an old couple. They were shrunken and slow moving. They were dressed neatly. I thought “what a cute couple.” As I got close, I heard one sharply say, “you didn’t send the fucking Christmas cards!” I was horrified.

They were Red-Red. And, I’m speculating here, they had probably been Red-Red for fifty years. This can last decades. In fact, it can be passed down from father to son, grandmother to granddaughter.

Both parties operate on the same rules. Escalation is mutual. Neither expects regulation. The chaos is normalized.

What about Blue-Red?

It’s unstable. It can’t stay this way forever.

The Blue person here often wonders if they are crazy. They are playing by Blue rules. The Red partner is not. The Blue partner assumes fairness. The Red partner assumes dominance or chaos. That destabilization creates anxiety, self-doubt and hypervigilance.

What does the Blue want?

For the Red to become Blue.

It’s the least common outcome.

What is more likely to happen?

Blue becomes Red.

At some point, Blue cracks. They say something awful. They yell. Maybe they act out by drinking, gambling or cheating. The point is, by staying in the relationship where they keep living with bad behavior, they slowly morph into Red. This is the most common outcome.

There is a third outcome though.

Blue leaves.

In couples or family therapy, I try to help Blue figure out if they are turning Red, they should try to set boundaries or leave.

I usually try to get Blue to leave. But if Red shows some willingness to work on themselves to change, they can wait around a bit longer, if they want. It depends on a few factors, including safety, how long this has been going on and how much damage has already been done.

I was treating a cop. His wife wanted a divorce after 18 years. He was devastated. He tried to save it. No. So he did everything she asked, hoping he would win her back. She was mean. He thought he was Blue-Red. I told him he was Red-Red, because he was unhealthy too. Not unhealthy mean, but unhealthy accommodating. He eventually got better. Then he started dating Mary. Mary really liked him and wanted to settle down. He liked her, but not as much as she liked him. And he didn’t want to settle down. From his perspective, she was Red and he was Blue. I told him because he was leading her on, knowing that she thought he would change but he never would, he was in fact Red. He saw it clearly. And he finally broke it off.

Red and Blue are behaviors, not identities. The same person can be Red in one relationship and Blue in another.

Red doesn’t mean evil. It doesn’t always mean cruel. It just means unhealthy. Excessive accommodation. Self-erasure. Begging for love.

Almost everyone has been Red in some relationship in their life. When we recognize it, we gain some wisdom. When we start to change from Red to Blue, that is real growth.

Once you have labeled your relationships, you can figure out which ones you want to put more time into and which ones you should cut, and which ones might be worth a little effort to save through change.

If your behavior depends entirely on how someone else behaves, you are not free.

Choose carefully.

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in schools, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.

---

I had a drinking problem when I was 18. It was hard to get alcohol. A friend of mine said there was an old lady in a town about 15 miles north of us that would buy it for us. She was 30. She lived in a ramshackle apartment building. The inside was dirty and sparsely furnished. She was smoking and there were a couple of pots on the stove. There were two kids, a girl who was maybe six and a boy who looked eight. There were two old people. I asked if they were her parents. “No, I watch over disabled older people. They’re nice enough,” she giggled. And then, “let’s go.”

I was startled. She meant to leave the kids and the disabled old people alone with the pots cooking on the stove. I didn’t like that. She was at the door with her bag and looked at me. “Let’s go.”

I turned and followed her out the door. I knew better and moved forward anyway. On the drive to the store, in the parking lot and on the way back, my whole body was churning. “This is wrong,” I thought. “I wasn’t raised like this. Those people should have never been left alone.”

My heart was pounding when we got back to her apartment. Everything was fine. The boy had made macaroni and cheese. Nothing had happened. It didn’t matter. It could have. I was horrified. My desire for alcohol had caused me to do an awful thing. I betrayed my values of protecting others by putting four vulnerable people in danger. I look back on that afternoon with piercing regret and deep shame.

I intentionally got blackout drunk as fast as possible. It was the only time I actually drank to blackout. The other times, it had been a side effect of my heavy drinking. This time I planned to get blotto. It temporarily helped. When I woke up, the regret washed back over.

This is not about my problem with alcohol at 18.

This is about behavior misaligned with values.

---

Looking at this matrix, my values were high but my behavior was low. I was in conflict. I felt guilt and then shame. If my behavior had matched my values, I would have felt whole. If my values had been selfish, I wouldn’t have felt anything at all.

---

I was working at Hunterdon Drug Awareness (HDAP) in the summer of 2005 and running groups in jail for men and women. One of the clients in there was a 19-year-old man who had been arrested eight times in the last year for marijuana possession, including twice on the same day. He was in jail this time because he tested positive for marijuana while on probation. He loved smoking weed but didn’t want to be in jail. On the spot, I drew up this matrix.

“Let’s say that saying ‘I don’t want to be in jail’ is a high value. Therefore, ‘I don’t care if I’m in jail is the low value.'” On this, he agreed. I continued, “Based on the fact that you are on probation and have been told you cannot smoke weed, we’ll put staying away from weed as a high behavior and smoking as a low behavior. Because you are on probation.” He begrudgingly agreed.

I showed him that his values were high but his behaviors were low.

“Either stop smoking weed and stay out of jail or change your values and accept jail as a consequence.”

The room went silent.

He saw it.

The fantasy he wanted:
Bad behavior + good value outcome.

That. Does. Not. Exist.

---

Most people don’t suffer because they lack values.

They suffer because they want the outcome their values promise without changing the behavior they require.

That is behavioral-values dissonance.

It’s painful.

---

This applies to:

Career. “I value excellence.” Do the minimum.

Marriage. “I value loyalty.” Cheat.

Parenting. “I value presence.” Always on phone.

Friendship. “I value honesty.” Avoid hard conversations.

Nation. “We value rule of law.” Ignore it when convenient.

---

At some point in their lives, almost everyone has betrayed their values.

Behavioral change is not about:

Self-esteem. Validation. Affirmations.

It’s about:

1. Clarifying your values.
2. Auditing your behavior.
3. Closing the gap.

No one escapes this math.

---

Live your values.

Why Supervision Matters

“Do not pick a job, pick a supervisor.”

I’ve been telling that to my social work students, interns and supervisees since 2011.

Neither the pay, nor the job title, nor the commute, nor the work-from-home policy should determine where you work. The driving variable is the supervisor.

That’s a difficult sell. It may mean taking a harder job, for less money, farther from home. It runs against a professional culture that prioritizes short-term comfort over long-term formation.

Supervision functions much like parenting. If you train under a good supervisor, you are far more likely to become a competent and grounded clinician. Strong clinicians can emerge from poor supervision, but it is rare. Poor supervisors, on the other hand, reliably produce underprepared and often embittered clinicians.

Before defining good supervision, it helps to understand what bad supervision looks like.

Bad Supervision

I recently read an evaluation where the clinician didn’t give a basis for the diagnosis, misspelled names, got dates wrong and provided laughable recommendations.

Three important aspects of supervision that I touch upon every month are scope of practice, countertransference and professional development.

Scope of practice refers to the area a licensed medical professional has been educated, trained and supervised in. An ophthalmologist doesn’t work on feet. Yes, they are a doctor but their scope of practice is the eyes. A supervisee’s scope of practice should not exceed their supervisor’s. If I am not competent in an area, I cannot supervise it safely. Expansion requires additional training and appropriate consultation.

Countertransference is when a clinician has an emotional reaction to the client. They could like them, hate them, dread them or overly root for them. Substance misuse counselors in recovery occasionally fall into a trap of wanting their client to get sober more than the client does and getting upset when it doesn’t work out. Countertransference tends to hit workers earlier in their career. Sometimes, countertransference should be discussed with a supervisor; other times, with a therapist. For example, if a clinician is treating someone whose disastrous romantic relationship reminds them of their own marriage, it may not be something they want to share with their supervisor. But, that supervisor should have taught them enough about countertransference that the worker knows to discuss it in therapy.

Professional development is pretty self-explanatory. I teach and review skills with workers, such as diagnosing, running groups, writing reports or conducting trainings. It also includes getting more education, pursuing new credentials and earning advanced licenses. It involves working with different demographics and on different types of cases. From the start, I explicitly prepare workers to either (a) get promoted with the company or (b) become strong enough to find a better job somewhere else. It is good for them, the field, society and in the meantime, I get great work out of them because they know they are moving forward towards something better.

---

Supervision must be modeled, not just taught.

---

Administration and Environment

When most Americans go to a doctor’s office, they are handed a clipboard and told to fill out a bunch of forms, including what might be a very in-depth medical history.

Do not hand clients a clipboard of paperwork. Walk them through it. They will take it more seriously and you will learn a lot more about them. Because you explain each form, sometimes apologizing for the duplicate nature, you will begin to build trust. During an intake several years ago, a cop told me that a paver ran over his foot when he was 18 and working on a road crew. He couldn’t walk for almost a year. It was important for me to know and I wouldn’t have found out if not for doing the intake paperwork with him and asking additional questions.

Individual and group rooms should be safe and interesting. There should be art on the walls to look at. I believe that clinicians should have something about their favorite sports team or musician or movie on the wall. It can spark a conversation, or at the very least, show the client you have your own life (although it can be annoying for other people who use your office when you aren’t there; one part-time worker got so frustrated by being asked about Bob Dylan because of the concert poster in my office that she thought about quitting).

A good supervisor makes sure the clinician eats during the day and takes regular time off.

---

Relationship and Alliance Building

I teach clinicians to acknowledge differences with their clients during the first session, particularly age, (most important), race and gender. One must explicitly state why you can work with them anyway. Invite questions or concerns.

I want clinicians to find common interests with clients: places visited, books read, favorite movies, sports, hiking, restaurants, television, music, video games, aquariums and any other hobbies that you have in common.

If you don’t know much about their job or hobby, ask them. A recent client educated me about meteorology. A fifteen year old taught me about Oxycontin in 2005 and another one of my clients at Rutgers informed me about fentanyl back in 2009. My work on the opiate epidemic was informed and inspired by my early clients.

If it is possible to leave the office, I think going for a walk with a client can be incredibly effective. A park is best, but not required. To be clear, one should follow agency policy, know the area and trust the client.

---

Clinical Standards

Diagnosis

The core rules in the DSM are that one does not diagnose when a medical condition or substances can explain the symptoms; and that only the most pervasive disorder in a clinical tree gets diagnosed (not bipolar disorder and depression, just bipolar disorder, as depression is an aspect of it). In 2009, a young woman from Connecticut walked into my office at Rutgers and told me, “I’m bipolar. I’m borderline. I’m addicted to alcohol and marijuana and mushrooms and LSD. I’m also anxious, depressed and have ADHD.” I told her to slow down and start with her name. She had been hit with so many diagnostic labels that it became her identity.

Clinicians should never simply reaffirm prior diagnoses. I tell my students and workers, “Even if you saw that I did it, I want you to review my work.” Once a diagnosis exists, professionals often stop checking. This is a known problem in physical medicine and mental health. A young soldier once walked into my office with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. She had gone to a hospital because she couldn’t sleep for days and had difficulty concentrating. This was because she had caught her live-in boyfriend with another woman in their bed when she came home from the Army and was justifiably incredibly upset. When she went to the ER, the doctor hit her with the bipolar diagnosis. The Army was going to kick her out until I met with her. I was enraged. I had to write a detailed report about how her symptoms were consistent with someone who had been horrifically betrayed by a romantic partner and not bipolar disorder. Her life was almost irreversibly worsened by a bad diagnosis.

A good clinician teaches clients: how the diagnosis was reached, what criteria were met and what treatment options exist.

A good supervisor teaches clinicians to place clients in the appropriate stage of change, especially when stuck or frustrated.

A good supervisor teaches clinicians that “If you don’t know something, say you don’t know.”

A good supervisor teaches clinicians to recognize when something is outside their scope and consult or refer out and to also recognize when a higher level of care is needed.

---

Individual and Group Practice Standards

Confidentiality must be explained at the start of individual work, as well as the five exceptions to confidentiality (record release, medical emergency, suspected abuse of elder/minor/disabled people, homicidal or suicidal ideation, court orders). Confidentiality should be stated at the start of every group, even if everyone in group has been there before. It reinforces the rules and structure.

Every session should end with reviewing what was discussed. That also signals that time is up. I believe that clients should be given one to five things to do before the next time you meet, with a particular focus on behaviors.

Individual sessions should not exceed one hour. Group sessions should not exceed 90 minutes. Do not tell people not to cry. Normalize distress when appropriate. Let people know reactions can be typical and healthy. Use humor if you have it. Confront and challenge only after trust is established. Use their words. Do not use blank facial neutrality. Be sad with them. Be angry for them. Do not be shocked.

---

Documentation and Ethics

Document everything: phone calls, emails, texts and random meetings. If someone provides information about a client by phone, email, letter or in-person, tell the client what was said and by whom, even if it is uncomfortable. Back in 2004, I didn’t keep a fax receipt for some paperwork I sent to the Orange County NY court regarding one of my clients at Integrity House. When I went with him, his probation officer claimed they never got the report. I couldn’t produce the fax receipt so the judge threw my client in jail. I went to my car and cried.

Supervisees must carry adequate malpractice insurance. It is strongly advised the supervisors and their clinicians use the same carrier, lest one’s insurance company sues the other and the case gets tied up for years. Do not skimp on coverage.

It is the supervisor’s job to teach the ten most common ethical problems and the eight most common punishments. Those are basic. There are much more in-depth ethical conversations to be had.

---

Lessons From My Supervisors

I want to tell you about my three supervisors, Joe Butler, Jass Pelland and Lisa Laitman. And I want to share three great lessons from each of them (there are more, but all you get are three).

I met Joe Butler in 2004. He led group clinical supervision on a weekly basis at Integrity House. He was a great listener. He asked probing questions of the other counselors and helped them to see what they should do next with their clients. I had been working there less than a month when he suggested that I go get my MSW. That was on January 27th and I got my application in before the February 1st deadline. My earliest exposure to family work was watching Joe run family education groups before visits.

Joe told me to stop talking about my teenage arrests and recovery background as a way of bonding and treating clients. “You are an outstanding peer but you want to be a clinician. You need to develop counseling skills. If you rely on your biography and personality, it’ll work, but you’ll never really get better.” I stopped talking about my background for two years. Joe taught me about clinical skill development.

I did my first year Master’s Internship at Integrity House. Joe had me work with women, people with HIV, people with sexual trauma and teenagers. New populations, new types of problems. During my second week in graduate school, a teenage boy told me during the intake that his neighbor had molested him for a few years. I told Joe, thinking that he would take care of it. Instead, he told me to have the Mom come in and I would tell her with her son in the room. “Joe, I’ve only been in school for two weeks.” He told me that it was my responsibility. Joe taught me to have hard conversations early.

During my time at Integrity House, my caseload had far better outcomes than any other counselor. Around the ninth month there, one of my clients left and got high. I was devastated. I was angry at him but also blamed myself. “You can’t wear your clients’ successes and failures. You didn’t get them sober and you can’t get them drunk. You are part of their process. That’s it. You control what you do with them; they are responsible for what happens. If you wear their successes and failure, you will emotionally burn out.” I became a process guy. Joe taught me that I am responsible for my work, not my clients’ outcomes.

I started working for Jass Pelland at Hunterdon Drug Awareness in 2005, shortly after I had left Integrity House. I was originally hired to run multi-family group on Friday nights. Despite only working five hours a week, she made sure to give me weekly supervision. I soon started working there about 25 hours a week. I ran six groups, conducted intakes and had a few individual clients. No matter how busy we were, I got individual supervision every Monday at 4 pm and took part in group supervision every Tuesday at 5 pm.

In late 2006, I conducted an intake on a late-thirty-something-year-old white male. He thought it was important for me to know his sexist, racist and homophobic beliefs. You know the type. I have almost always been able to find something to like or some way to bond with a client. I found him to be distasteful and deplorable. I didn’t want to work with him. I told Jass that I completed it and that he needed treatment but I didn’t want to work with him. She asked me why. I told her that he was racist and sexist and spewed bile the whole time and I didn’t like him. She said, “I don’t care about that. He needs treatment, so you treat him.” I told her that he also hated gay people. Jass is a lesbian, so I figured that would do the trick. “So what? He needs treatment. We provide treatment. So you will provide treatment.” And I worked very hard at providing him quality treatment despite my personal difficulties with him. Jass taught me that treatment is not contingent on liking the client.

In 2008, we admitted a trans woman into our program. She had been kicked out of Sunrise House Detox because they didn’t know where to put her. Jass made all of us take a half day course on providing substance misuse treatment to trans people. I asked her why we were spending so much time learning how to work with just one client from a very rare population. She raised her voice, not in anger, but to emphasize how important her next words were: “We need to be able to provide quality treatment to any individual in the community, but particularly to people who can’t get it anywhere else. We are not here to just treat the most common people and the most common cases.” She taught me that competence must extend to the margins.

More than any individual lesson though, what stands out most about Jass is that she was a role model. Every month, she reviewed every current client file. This meant she looked at between 120 and 150 charts during the last three days of the month. I would get two to five pages in red ink about all the things I needed to fix. There were no shortcuts, no cut and paste. Our notes were so good that our agency was used by the state as a model of what an Intensive Outpatient Program’s (IOP) paperwork should look like. She taught me to write every document like it would appear in court or on the front page of the Star Ledger. Other clinicians and I would complain about intakes, caseloads and paperwork. Then we would glance down the hall and see Jass working at 9 pm. She did intakes herself, carried a caseload, ran groups, took urines, supervised us and reviewed all of our paperwork. No matter how hard she pushed us, she demanded more from herself. And, as I write this I have a lump in my throat, that is how I am now. Despite the long drive during rush hour traffic, I worked part-time under her for six years.

I met Lisa Laitman when I arrived at Rutgers in 1997. She oversaw the Alcohol and Other Drug Assistance Program and ran the Recovery House. I had decided to live in the transfer dorm my first year but I made sure to get to know her. I moved into the Recovery House my second year at Rutgers and found her to be an incredible mentor.

Lisa came to Rutgers in 1983 and created an early recovery group in 1984. In 1988, Rutgers became the first school in the world to have specialized housing for students in recovery. She was a trailblazer of the first order. In 2009, Lisa hired me to be the Recovery Counselor on both the New Brunswick and Newark Campuses. I met with students individually, ran group, trained resident advisors (RA’s) all over campus, took students to meetings, organized activities, found new students, coerced alumni to attend events and handled small and big crises.

Despite the Recovery House being her life’s work, she handed me the proverbial keys soon after I was hired. We met weekly and I kept her apprised with what I was doing, but she let me run with it all. She trusted my abilities, work ethic, values and judgement. She was confident enough to give me autonomy. She taught me that trust produces responsibility.

Lisa emphasized emotional regulation over success and criticism. When I worked at Rutgers, we had tremendous institutional support from the President and extra funding from the State. Lisa was happy about it but she had a long view of things. “A few years earlier, the former Dean of Student Affairs wanted to get rid of Recovery Housing. He didn’t think we were serving enough students and that our population was a giant potential liability.” She rode out that rough time and kept the Recovery House going. “When you are disliked and disregarded, just keep doing the work. It’ll turn. And when you are praised and celebrated, don’t get too full of yourself or let your guard down, because it’ll turn.” Stay frosty. Lisa taught me to regulate my ego before I regulated anyone else.

The last story is too long to retell, but you can read about it here. Basically, there were some students who said some bad things about the recovery students. I wanted to punish them. Lisa saw another way. And she was right.

The wildest part?

I picked all three to be my supervisors.

---

Burnout

I teach my students, interns and clinicians to watch for when they are irritable. Or, in some case, more irritable than usual. I watch them for cynicism, which can be tricky, because I fall into societal-level cynicism on occasion. I tell them to beware of over-identifying with clients and to avoid rescue fantasies. But to also not wall themselves off with detachment or rule rigidity. Watch out for moral superiority, I tell them (this is another trap I can fall into). And don’t become numb.

Burnout is not avoided by affirmative signs (“happiness” or the absolute worst, “gather”) and going to yoga (I love yoga, to be clear). Burnout is prevented by having reasonable caseloads, a clear scope of practice, access to consultation, time off without guilt, leaders who model restraint and humility and weekly quality supervision.

I regularly review clinicians’ cases. I check in on countertransference. I tell them about my mistakes and how to avoid them. I model saying “I don’t know” and “I’m not sure.” I am aware of my scope of practice and refer to other clinicians and programs without shame. I take breaks for coffee and meals. I take time off, both long weekends and extended vacations.

There is an extremely important caveat here. A good supervisor isn’t the be-all and end-all. A good supervisor cannot permanently compensate for a corrupt institution.

---

Non-negotiables for New Clinicians

• Do not wear client outcomes.
• Do not diagnose when substances or medical conditions can explain symptoms.
• Reassess diagnoses even when they come from good clinicians.
• Teach clients how diagnoses were reached.
• Explain confidentiality every time.
• End sessions with review and next steps.
• Eat during the work day.
• Document everything.

---

Putting It all Together

Early supervision protects clients first. It protects clinicians second. It protects institutions third. It accelerates development and prevents bad habits from hardening into character.

Jobs come and go. Titles change. Salaries fluctuate.

Do not pick a job. Pick a supervisor.

---

---

Yesterday I published The Corruption of Language in the Helping Professions. In it, I took apart TikTok talk, academic fog, government drivel and MAGA and progressive doublespeak. It was both an homage to George Orwell and a long, specific catalog of what not to do.

That piece violates one of my own rules. It names problems without offering enough solutions beyond “don’t write like this.”

That failure bothered me.

I spent an inordinate amount of time today listing, organizing and editing what follows.

While I think it would help almost anyone’s writing, this is meant to be particularly instructional for my students and supervisees.

Purpose

Good writing clarifies thinking. Bad writing hides it. In clinical, academic and policy work, unclear language causes harm. This doctrine exists to reduce vagueness, avoid professional self-deception and improve accountability.

---

I. Core Rules of Clarity (Orwell)

1. Avoid dead metaphors and stock phrases.
   If you have seen it in print a thousand times, cut it. (Orwell)
2. Prefer short words to long ones.
   If a shorter word works, use it. (Orwell)
3. Cut unnecessary words.
   If a word can be removed without changing meaning, remove it. (Orwell)
4. Use active voice whenever possible.
   Name the actor. Avoid hiding responsibility. (Orwell)
5. Avoid jargon when plain English works.
   Scientific and academic language must clarify, not impress. (Orwell)
6. Break any rule rather than write something barbarous.
   Rules serve clarity, not rigidity. (Orwell)

Source: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946).

---

II. Precision and Accountability

7. Every claim must point to an action, decision or behavior.
   If it cannot, it is likely meaningless.
8. Name who does what.
   “Systems failed” is weaker than “The agency did not hire staff.”
9. Avoid hedging language that adds no information.
   Phrases like at this time usually add nothing.
10. Distinguish observation from interpretation.
    State what you saw. Then explain what you think it means.

---

III. Evidence and Citation (Required)

11. Cite sources for factual claims.
    Use links, APA citations or MLA footnotes. Pick one and be consistent.
12. Attribute ideas even when paraphrasing.
    Avoid even the appearance of plagiarism.
13. Use dates, locations and verifiable details when possible.
    This allows readers to check your work.

Frederick Douglass Clause:
Douglass wrote his first autobiography so skeptics could verify his identity and experiences. Checkability is an ethical act, not a stylistic choice.

Source: Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845).

---

IV. Numbers and Mechanics

14. Numbers one through ten are written out.
    Numbers eleven and above appear as numerals. (MLA)
15. Spell out acronyms on first use.
    Assume no shared knowledge.
16. Titles of books, films and magazines are italicized.
    Be consistent.
17. Avoid repetition unless intentional.
    Repetition must serve emphasis, not carelessness.

---

V. Sentence Structure

18. Favor short sentences.
    Clarity over flourish.
19. Use occasional longer sentences intentionally.
    A soft rule: nine short sentences, one longer combined sentence.
20. Avoid stacking multiple roles or ideas into one sentence.
    Separate ideas deserve separate sentences.

---

VI. Ad-Hominem Rule (Frank’s Dad’s Clause)

21. Critique actions, decisions and outcomes.
    Do not attack appearance, intelligence or personal traits.
22. Be tougher on behavior than on people.
    Precision is stronger than insult.

---

VII. Questions in Writing

23. Use questions sparingly.
    Questions can evade responsibility or lead the reader.
24. If you ask a question, answer it.
    Do not outsource your position to the reader.

---

VIII. Profanity and Tone

25. No profanity for students or supervisees.
    This is protective. Professional credibility comes first.
26. Tone should match purpose.
    Clinical notes require restraint. Essays may allow voice.

---

IX. Clinical and Professional Writing Standards

27. Describe concrete behaviors.
    Avoid abstract labels without examples.
28. Explain how conclusions were reached.
    Especially in evaluations and reports.
29. Distinguish diagnosis from description.
    State criteria, not just labels.

---

X. Learning to Write Better

30. Read widely and constantly.
    Newspapers, magazines, history, fiction, non-fiction, comics, plays, biography, instructions and poetry.
31. Write often.
    Emails, notes, journals, reports and essays.
32. Do not outsource writing.
    Thinking happens in the act of writing.
33. Edit other people’s work.
    This sharpens judgment.
34. Teach.
    Teaching forces clarity and audience awareness.

---

Canonical Sources Referenced

• Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. 1946.
• Strunk, William & White, E.B. The Elements of Style.
• Zinsser, William. On Writing Well.
• Modern Language Association (MLA) Style Guide.
• Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. 1845.

---

Disclosure: Structural organization and editing assistance were provided by a large language model in accordance with my AI Use & Writing Standards. All rules, positions and conclusions are my own.
See: https://greenagel.com/ai-use-and-writing-standards/

I have been having my Rutgers seniors read Orwell’s On Politics and the English language since 2012. It’s a difficult article, as Orwell intentionally filled it with long sentences, obscure words and vague political speak in an effort to demonstrate bad writing while railing against it. Very meta.

Orwell took particular issue with dying metaphors (toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of), pretentious diction (phenomenon, epoch-making) and meaningless words (patriotic, justice, democracy, freedom) in political writing, as they were lazy, vague and made it harder to understand what is actually being said.

Orwell explicitly lists six rules to prevent bad writing:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous

Ever since, I’ve been crossing out words, sentences and paragraphs in my students’ work. I scrawl “vague, stale, too wordy or what are you actually trying to say here?” all over their papers. I am much loved.

In 2018, I compiled a list of stale business phrases to show how Americans failed to heed Orwell’s advice and actually got dumber:

1. Give 110 percent
2. Think outside the box
3. Hammer it out
4. Heavy lifting
5. Throw them under the bus
6. Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched
7. Pushing the envelope
8. Let the cat out of the bag
9. Let’s circle back
10. Win-win situation
11. Blue-sky thinking
12. Boil the ocean
13. Synergy
14. Low-hanging fruit
15. Take it to the next level
16. Barking up the wrong tree
17. Going forward
18. Let’s ballpark this
19. Run this up the flagpole
20. Back to square one
21. There’s no I in team
22. Back to the drawing board
23. Paradigm shift
24. Elephant in the room
25. Raise the bar
26. Drill down
27. Best thing since sliced bread
28. Deep dive
29. Skin in the game
30. Reach out
31. Touch base
32. Play hardball
33. Don’t reinvent the wheel
34. Kept in the loop
35. The bottom line
36. Down the road
37. I’ll loop you in
38. Hit the nail on the head
39. ASAP
40. Team player

I have pulled directors and executives aside after I’ve heard them utter these phrases and hit them with Oscar Wilde’s “you talk so much and don’t have anything to say.”

Last week, Marina Laurent, a current student of mine (and an Air Force Veteran, so double winner) wrote about how in other social work classes she has been taught about “person-centered practice” and “reports barriers to care.” My god. I’ve been railing against psychobabble and therapy-speak, the style of academic journals, vagueness, political doublespeak and TikTok talk for decades. Decades, dude. Oh to have lived in earlier times when people read more, wrote better and were eager to get vaccinated.

So, on to some villainous phrases that are used in 21st century social media, social work, psychology, academia, government and politics.

TikTok Talk

1. Triggered
   Strong emotional reaction framed as identity. The crown jewel disaster for preventing growth.
2. Gaslighting
   A specific form of manipulation turned into a synonym for disagreement.
3. Narcissist
   Clinical diagnosis flattened into a personality insult. If your spouse or ex is an actual narcissist, you might want to get evaluated to see why you were with them so long.
4. Avoidant
   Attachment shorthand used to explain incompatibility without effort.
5. Emotional unavailability
   Vague label that avoids naming needs, limits or expectations.
6. Breadcrumbing
   Intermittent interest reframed as pathology rather than ambivalence.
7. Love bombing
   A real behavior diluted by applying it to early enthusiasm.
8. Manifesting
   Magical thinking repackaged as personal agency.
9. Boundaries
   Important concept misused to shut down conversation.
10. Trauma dumping
    Sometimes real. Often used to avoid listening.
11. Red flag
    Actually a pretty good term. A few traits should be universally disliked, like being cruel or having a penchant for raping. There are others. The rest, though, are pretty arbitrary. In dating, two red flags for me are if she doesn’t read at least one book a month and if she spends more than 15 minutes on social media.
12. Healing journey
    Directionless process without goals or metrics. California hippie therapy.
13. Inner child
    Powerful metaphor misused as an excuse.
14. Emotional safety
    Undefined protection from discomfort.
15. Toxic
    In English, this means a substance or environment that causes death. In 21st Century America, it means a bad job, a bad boss or a bad boyfriend. “He literally poisoned me.” I don’t want to get into what literary means.
16. Hard launching
    Performative certainty.
17. Vibes
    A refusal to articulate thought. This is just an awful word.
18. Holding space
    Means nothing without behavior.
19. Doing the work
    Work unspecified. Outcome unclear.
20. Alignment
    Spiritual language used to avoid decision-making.
21. Unhealed
    True Orwell shit. Awful, stupid term. I can’t figure it out.
22. Core wound
    Speculative diagnosis with no treatment plan.
23. Self-abandonment
    Catch-all for regret. Again, just a radically stupid term.
24. Energetic match
    Astrology for relationships.
25. Hyper-independence
    Normal autonomy reframed as pathology.

---

Social Work and Psychology Babble

26. Trauma-informed
    Claimed without describing changes in practice. Most trauma-informed therapists and programs actually aren’t.
27. Client-centered
    Baseline ethics framed as innovation.
28. Evidence-based
    Which evidence? Applied how?
29. Best practices
    Consensus without specificity. There are so many places that say they use best practices that aren’t a good program. Meaningless.
30. Barriers to care
    Gestures at problems without naming responsibility. Shout out to Marina.
31. Strengths-based
    Used to avoid discussing deficits that matter.
32. Lived experience
    Ends debate rather than clarifies expertise: I’ve lived, worked and deeply consulted in the following institutions: military, law enforcement, secondary education, higher education, corrections, media, state and local politics and health care. I guess that means I understand the United States better than almost anyone then.
33. Safe space
    Safety from what: discomfort or harm?
34. Processing emotions
    Action-free phrasing.
35. Whole-person care
    Undefined scope.
36. Harm reduction
    Reduced how? Measured where? A lot of harm reduction people look like active drug users. That hurts the movement.
37. Meeting clients where they are
    Often means expecting nothing.
38. Empowerment
    Power undefined.
39. Resilience
    Jamba juice was closed. Annoying. I got through it though because I’m resilient.
40. Noncompliant
    Client won’t do what I say and isn’t getting better. He is non-compliant.
41. Treatment resistant
    Avoids examining quality of treatment delivered.
42. Clinically indicated
    By what standard? I train people to put down a diagnosis and to list which criteria they meet. That’s clear. Do you see the difference?
43. At this time
    Useless hedging.
44. Rule out
    Sometimes replaces reasoning.
45. Scope of practice
    Properly used, it protects clients and clinicians. Misused, it becomes a shield against competence. For example: autism, geriatrics and eating disorders are outside of my scope of practice.
46. Case management
    Real case management requires assessment, planning, referral and evaluation. Many places use the term and do none of it.
47. Stages of change
    A powerful model when clinicians actually assess stage and adjust approach instead of reciting theory.
48. Continuum of care
    Often imaginary. Often used to justify sending you to their other business.
49. Wraparound services
    Undefined bundle. A way to get more money out of you.
50. Clinical judgment
    Sometimes a cover for intuition alone.
51. Therapeutic alliance
    Important, but not sufficient. “We like each other” isn’t enough.
52. Self-care
    Someone must specifically cite the behavior and how it is helping. Otherwise this is sometimes an excuse to skip work or avoid the in-laws.

---

Education and Academic Language

53. Critical thinking skills
    Rarely defined or assessed. Very few teachers teach these. If you want to develop critical thinking, first do a take down of your own positions. That’s critical thinking.
54. Transformative learning
    Transformation unspecified.
55. Creating dialogue
    Dialogue toward what decision. Do you mean talking?
56. Inclusive pedagogy
    Methods unstated. Sometimes it is impossible to reach 100% of the classroom. Getting through to 80% is quite good.
57. Student-centered learning
    Buzzword without structure. You get to decide how to learn. What a world!
58. Experiential learning
    Working for free. Often for someone who doesn’t know what they are doing.
59. Scaffolding
    Educational jargon replacing explanation.
60. Learning objectives
    Written but not measured.

---

Government and Policy Language

61. Moving forward
    Temporal filler.
62. Stakeholders
    Obscures power differences.
63. Operationalizing recommendations
    Means someone else will figure it out.
64. Leveraging resources
    Resources unspecified.
65. Public-private partnership
    How to give public money to private businesses while looking virtuous.
66. Data-driven decision-making
    Which data. Interpreted by whom?
67. Systemic challenges
    Avoids naming actors.
68. Policy solutions
    Solutions without cost or enforcement.
69. Pilot program
    Delay tactic.
70. Task force
    Action substitute.
71. Anti-American
    Used to silence dissent.
72. -gate
    Suffix inflation that trivializes real scandals.
73. Culture war
    Distraction from economic policy.
74. War on XYZ
    I don’t agree with your criticism. The War on Christmas is one of the great 21st century exaggerations.
75. Whole-of-government approach
    Means nothing.
76. Evidence-informed policy
    Weaker version of evidence-based.
77. Best available science
    Often ignored. Sometimes funded by Exxon.
78. Capacity building
    Capacity for what?

---

Emotional Cushioning Language

79. This feels heavy
    No shit. Good therapy deals with hard stuff.
80. I hear you
    Acknowledgment without response.
81. That’s valid
    Conversation ender.
82. Let’s unpack that
    Often goes nowhere.
83. It’s complicated
    Usually true. Often lazy. Lots about life is complicated.
84. Sitting with discomfort
    Avoids action.
85. Showing up
    Presence without responsibility.

---

Corporate and Workplace Language

86. Synergy
    Meaningless.
87. Low-hanging fruit
    Avoids hard work.
88. Circle back
    They won’t circle back. Those were just words.
89. Deep dive
    Extended meeting. Usually a waste of time.
90. Reach out
    Contact.
91. Bandwidth
    I’m not your best worker.
92. Deliverables
    Tasks.
93. Next-level
    Unspecified improvement.
94. Paradigm shift
    Rarely one.
95. Win-win
    Usually not.

---

Cultural and Media Language

96. Narrative
    Often replaces facts.
97. Platform
    Inflated importance.
98. Amplify
    Broadcast without critique.
99. Problematic
    Accusation without argument.
100. Reframing
     Spin.

---

MAGA and Progressive Political Language

100. Law and order
     Arresting brown and black people.
101. Common sense reform
     You should agree with me.
102. Radical agenda
     Policy I dislike.
103. Mainstream values
     Undefined majority.
104. Woke
     An insult to be used when you don’t like policies that help Black people.
105. Cancel culture
     Social consequence reframed as oppression. If you rape, you should be cancelled.
106. Weaponization
     Criticism reframed as attack.
107. Deep state
     Institutional complexity. Often involving lawyers who uphold the law, turned into conspiracy.
108. Fake news
     Unfavorable reporting.
109. Populist movement
     Vague appeal to the people. Usually means they want free stuff for people like them but not for different kinds of people.
110. National conversation
     Media talking to itself.
111. Bipartisan solution
     Compromise without substance.
112. Protect our democracy
     Often rhetorical only.
113. Historic moment
     Every news cycle.
114. Lawfare
     Legal accountability reframed as persecution. More importantly, not a real word.
115. Freedom
     If I can’t do what I want, then I’m not free.
116. Parental rights
     Selective control over public institutions.
117. States’ rights
     Federal enforcement I dislike.
118. Election integrity
     I don’t want Democrats to win.
119. Traditional values
     Whose tradition, exactly? My ancestors drank wine out of the skulls of their enemies. For realz.
120. Centering voices
     Who chooses which voices matter?
121. Systemic oppression
     True in many cases, often poorly defined.
122. Words are violence
     If I break your lower leg into three distinct pieces, you’ll figure out what is actually violence.
123. Harmful rhetoric
     Speech I dislike.
124. Restorative practices
     Useful tool treated as universal solution. Often a political loser.
125. Power dynamics
     Sometimes analysis, sometimes conversation stopper. Often “I don’t like men.”
126. Decolonizing
     Often metaphorical, rarely literal. Comes across as anti-white. A political loser.
127. Radical empathy
     Empathy without limits. This is a stupid term. Empathy works just fine.
128. America First
     Was a Nazi-adjacent phrase in the 1940s.
129. Patriot
     Loyalty test, not civic duty.
130. Globalist
     Person I don’t trust. Really, this means Jew.
131. Elites
     People with education or power I resent.
132. Real Americans
     Not coastal urbanites who do yoga and like French food.
133. Hard-working Americans
     White people.

---

The Final Offender

134. Unprecedented times
     Every generation thinks so. The Bubonic Plague was really bad.

---

Many of these words or phrases often need to be explained to people. A rule in comedy is that if you have to explain a joke, then it isn’t funny. These phrases persist because people are lazy. Full stop. They allow the speaker to avoid precision, conflict and accountability. A few of these phrases are racist dog whistles, giving the speaker an out: “that’s not what I meant.” Yes it is. When language stops pointing to specific actions or decisions, it stops working.

My parents were born and raised in Minnesota. As were their parents and grandparents. Mom and Dad moved to New Jersey in 1971. One time I was on a train in Washington D.C. and a man asked if I was from Minnesota. “My parents are, but I’m from New Jersey. That means I have a strong ethical core but I’m probably the most aggressive Vikings fan you’ll ever meet.”

In the fall of 1994, I attended classes for a few weeks at Raritan Valley Community College. A friend picked me up on the way to class. I took my Dad’s Board of Trustees parking pass and we parked in front of the main entrance, a far better spot than other students used.

My father flipped out. As angry as I had ever seen him. “What is wrong with you? What on Earth would make you ever think that was okay?”

I fell back on the cowardly familiar “I don’t know.”

“I don’t use it when I go there and I’m not on trustee business. You dishonor me. You dishonor yourself.” Silence. And then, “I can’t believe you did this. Why do you think you deserve special treatment? That’s a huge problem with this world. People thinking they deserve special treatment. And you are becoming one of them.” He walked away. And then he came back.“You never take a benefit from a public role that other people don’t get.”

It was a brutally powerful lecture. I just sat there. Absorbing the reverberations of his words for the next half hour. Over thirty years later, I feel a deep sense of shame when I think about it.

There were other piercing lectures. In eighth grade, I lifted a paragraph from a book and put it in a paper without citing it. My dad went ballistic. “You are taking credit for something you didn’t do. It’s stealing. It’s lying. It’s terrible behavior.”

My mother’s moral instruction was also very serious, but gentler and more proactive. From my earliest days, she would read to me and then ask me how I thought the character felt. We would watch a play or movie and she’d ask “Was that the right thing to do?” or “What would you do in that situation?”

They weren’t just teaching me their values or the family’s values, but Minnesota values. That is one reason why I’ve been irritated that the always-Trumpers have labeled Minneapolis “insane” and “radical.”

Minnesota: A quick and incomplete survey

Minnesota became a state in 1858. Less than three years later, they were the first to answer Lincoln’s call for troops. Minnesota is the 22nd largest state in raw population but maintains a National Guard that is disproportionately large. They have high rates of education and low rates of crime.

Hmong refugees came to Minnesota in the 1970s and Somali refugees came in the 1990s. Because of the wildly long cold winters, Minnesota might seem like an unlikely destination for people from Southeast Asia and Africa to settle. The Lutherans and Catholics in Minneapolis have long practiced tolerance and charity and were early sponsors and organizers of refugee resettlement.

General Mills, 3M, US Bank, Cargill and Best Buy are long-standing Minnesota companies that are multi-generation employers, stable and community-supporting. US Bank wasn’t a primary driver of the 2007-08 housing crisis that rocked the world financial markets and they repaid their TARP funds early.

Minnesota values include working hard, showing up on time, being kind to others, speaking respectfully, not taking credit for other people’s work, admitting mistakes, following rules and cleaning up your own mess.

Common Minnesota phrases that reflect these values are:

• Let’s just take a breath here
• No need to make it worse
• Let’s hear them out
• I could be wrong
• We all still have to live together
• Well…that’s something

Take a moment to think about your warmest elementary school teacher or your calmest coach or the sweetest person at church or the most helpful person at your first job. That’s the spirit of Minnesota.

It is because of that history of military service, civic participation, rule following, charity towards others, stable companies and rock-solid values that this moment of dissent in Minnesota should be read as a warning signal and not a sign of radicalism.

True Patriotic Moments

In 1770, British soldiers murdered five Bostonians who were heckling them. The rest of the almost-fledgling United States was appalled. Samuel Adams wrote “Innocent colonists murdered by the vicious British soldiers on our own American soil. Not only do they tax us without a vote, now they are murdering us in the streets of Boston.”

In 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen fired 67 shots at student protesters on the Kent State campus. Four students were killed and several more were injured. Most U.S. citizens were horrified, but there was a small minority who believed the protesters brought it on themselves. President Nixon appointed a commission to evaluate what happened and their report stated that “the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.”

Many Americans today like to think that they would have participated in the Underground Railroad. And that they would have hidden Anne Frank. They like to think that they are like the most heroic Americans of the 1850s or Europeans of the 1940s.

And yet, a common refrain that is often uttered in 21st century America is “I can’t get involved, I’ve got bills to pay.” Not very brave or civic minded. And certainly not the Underground Railroad or hide Anne Frank type.

The Boston Massacre. Kent State. The Underground Railroad. Anne Frank. Dissent has often looked radical to the comfortable.

Comfort without Responsibility

The Great Gatsby was published in 1925 and set on Long Island and in New York City. Several of the main characters are vain, selfish, spiteful, untrustworthy and materialistic. Tom Buchanan is an arrogant, out-and-out racist and adulterer. Jordan Baker cheats at golf. Daisy kills a woman while driving and doesn’t stop.

Nick Carraway is the narrator and moral conscience of the story. He is from the Midwest, and is the stand-in for F. Scott Fitzgerald (who was, significantly, born and raised in Minnesota and educated in New Jersey).

The book opens with Nick sharing some advice from his father: “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one… just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”

A few years ago, Nick’s lines about Tom and Daisy Buchanan swirled around the internet as a commentary about a few particular American political figures: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness.”

Universal Lessons

In school, American students learn about the tyranny of George III. We read about the revolutionary patriots who fought organized powers that invaded their streets and entered their houses without permission or warrants.

American students learn about Italian, German and Japanese fascism. About the violence, cruelty and lawlessness of those governments. We celebrate the noble allies who sacrificed so much to defeat them. Robert Gibson died on January 12, 2026 at the age of 102. He fought at Utah Beach and in the Battle of the Bulge. Whenever he talked about the war, he concluded his remarks with “we did this for you, so don’t screw it up.”

American students learn about the non-violent civil disobedience practiced by Gandhi, Dr. King, John Lewis, Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela. How each one of them stood up to oppressive power, took blows without striking back and won over enough supporters until they fundamentally changed their countries.

Popular culture reinforced these lessons in The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.

Lessons Applied

The people of Minneapolis have made their values clear. They

• don’t want parents ripped away from their children
• don’t believe people should be stopped and asked for papers
• don’t believe someone should be beaten or shot or killed for filming the actions of federal agents
• don’t believe the government can kick down your door without a warrant
• don’t believe people should be chemically sprayed in the face when they are already restrained
• don’t believe in masked government agents

I was born in 1976. The 1990s saw a high level of peace and prosperity. The footage of black people being attacked by dogs and Americans murdered in the streets were from historical films in black and white. The bad guys around the world had mostly been defeated. Things were seemingly getting better year by year. I’ve oversimplified it, but I think you get the point.

I tell my students today that society wasn’t like this when I was their age. People were friendlier, warmer, more social and less scared. Adults seemed to be responsible and calm. Since 9/11, Americans are more isolated, quicker to anger, less trusting but paradoxically more gullible, more selfish, more arrogant and utterly less responsible. We have seemed to forget those lessons from King George to The Great Gatsby to World War II to Dr. King to Star Wars. It is something that makes me quite sad.

And yet. This January, I have seen civic-minded, values-based, non-violent patriotism in action on the streets of Minneapolis. At this moment, the best of America is represented in Minnesota. But here’s the thing, there are people who are like that in every state.

From The Three Lessons from Minneapolis that was published in The Atlantic yesterday:

Again and again in American history, the places accused of disorder turn out to be the places insisting that the rules still matter. Minnesota belongs to that tradition.

My Minnesota. Our Minnesota. America’s Minnesota.

Sometimes you can learn a lot about someone from a single moment. Last summer, my mother and I were walking through the theater district in the afternoon and came upon a human traffic jam that was caused by many people getting into line for a show while others were trying to get past. The road was full of cars so the sidewalk was just packed. There was a frail, elderly woman standing alongside her husband, who was being pushed in a wheelchair by a theater staffer. They couldn’t move, because no one would make way for them. I stopped and tried to make a passage with my body. A number of people kept walking through. This irritated me. “Jesus Fucking Christ people, everyone stop!” I said in a commanding voice. The staffer nodded at me and the old woman touched my arm and said a very soft yet sincere “thank you.” It shouldn’t have taken all of that for them to get through.

From this, one can gleam that (a) I spend time with my mother; (b) we attend plays in Manhattan; (c) I try to be helpful to others whenever I can; and (d) I get irritated with people when they make things more difficult for others, particularly the elderly, those with disabilities or children.

One of my professional rules is that I don’t teach, speak or write about issues that I do not have an expertise in. I support immigration enforcement as a lawful function of the state. I also support police and military institutions governed by clear rules, identifiable authority and accountability. This essay explains why recent ICE practices in Minneapolis undermine those principles.

My Military and Law Enforcement Background

I joined the United State Army as a tanker in 1996. After training at Ft. Knox, I joined my unit in Port Murray, NJ that fall and was immediately placed with the S-2/S-3 of the battalion headquarters company (the S-2 is military intelligence, the S-3 is training and planning).

After 9/11, I was activated that fall to guard the Hudson River bridges and tunnels from NJ into Manhattan. Our tasks were to guard against any future attacks, but to also provide the public a sense of safety and security. We had to stop and search random cars before they crossed the George Washington Bridge or entered the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels; we were given very explicit instructions on greeting everyone, identifying ourselves, explaining the situation, not responding to irritation or anger with anything other than calmness and completing our searches efficiently so people could get on with their day.

Our M16s and 9mms were not loaded. We weren’t even given ammunition. I was 25 and thought it was stupid to have unloaded weapons. Master Sergeant Spadoni instructed me, “Look at Traffnic. Look at Mays. Do you want them walking around on US soil with a loaded weapon?”

“No.”

“Neither does the commander. Or anyone with any sense. Just our presence is a deterrence, and the police we are assisting have their weapons if need be.”

I served from 1996 to 2002. After that, I taught English in Tokyo, got a graduate degree in social work, taught English in Elizabeth, worked as a drug & alcohol counselor at a few treatment programs before landing at Rutgers and earned another graduate degree in public policy. Between those treatment programs and Rutgers, I ended up helping and treating a number of veterans. In 2014, I was directly commissioned into the Army as a Behavioral Health Officer. I rejoined because I wanted to help those that serve. I volunteered to deploy to Poland near the Russian border in 2019. I was the lone mental health provider for about 1200 NATO soldiers. I treated them mostly for family problems, substance misuse issues and PTSD from their experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2016, I started work as the Consulting Therapist for the New York State Troopers Employee Assistance Program. Over the last 10 years, I’ve conducted trainings on substance misuse, relationships, grief, de-escalation, managing stress and generally surviving the job. I provide post-crisis counseling to sworn members who deal with child sex crimes, car accidents, witnessed suicides, homicides, dead babies, car fires where those inside burn to death and shootings. It’s very heavy.

The vast bulk of the people I treat are cops, military, veterans, fire fighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers and therapists. I have a preference for people who try to help, who try to make things better for other people and who care for others. A majority of the cops and veterans I treat have differing domestic and/or international political views than me, but they get the same exact treatment that I give someone that shares my view on Ukraine or the importance of government lawyers.

ICE Agents in Minneapolis

If you support police and military professionalism, you should be concerned about the following:

Most ICE agents are wearing masks. Many don’t have information on them that identifies them as ICE. I have seen a lot of videos and pictures where they have POLICE written on their body armor, even though they are not trained, supervised or employed as police officers. Almost none of them have their name on their uniform. It is very easy to buy almost all of the weapons and equipment that ICE agents in Minneapolis are currently using; therefore, it is very easy for anyone to cosplay as an ICE agent. Anonymity is incompatible with law enforcement standards. In a democratic society (or a republic), it is essential that government actors are answerable for their actions. This greatly reduces misconduct and wrongdoing, encourages restraint, allows for accountability and helps with public trust. Masked and unidentifiable ICE agents violate all of that.

Military service members wear visible insignia, have rules of engagement, follow a clear command authority and have after action accountability. Domestic enforcement should not be less accountable than overseas operations.

Using kids as bait. It is a government’s duty to protect children. Using them as bait puts them in harm’s way and is a violation of that obligation.

This is a heinous, vile and appalling example of the failure of ICE in Minneapolis regarding child welfare laws. It is also a moral failure.

Removing an elderly man from his home in little clothing who had committed no crimes. ICE entered the home of a US citizen without a visible warrant and abducted him. He was not allowed to put on anything warmer despite near freezing weather. He was not allowed to verify his identity to the agents.

Chemically spraying a person who was already restrained. Once a person is restrained and no longer a threat, additional force must be strictly justified. Multiple lawyers have told me that the ICE agents in the below photo almost certainly violated use of force laws and that they would use Graham v Connor (1989) and the 4th Amendment to both criminally try and civilly sue those agents. To be clear, in these type of cases, courts often ask:

• Was the person already secured?
• Was there an active threat?
• Was the restraint preventive or punitive?
• Was there a less invasive alternative?

There have been many recorded incidents where ICE agents are escalating situations using an aggressive tone, loud voice and threatening language. There is not a law that requires government agents to use a calm tone or respectful language, but how they speak can be legally consequential. Shouting, demeaning language and threats may be viewed as provoking or escalating a situation. In fact, DHS has explicit policies on the importance of use of force and de-escalation. One could make a strong argument that several of the ICE agents in Minneapolis have violated their agency’s official policies.

If a state trooper, military police or corrections officer engaged in any of these behaviors, it would trigger an investigation. ICE should not be exempt from standards other agencies already meet.

Policy, Training and Character

Clearly, the United States needs to re-examine DHS and ICE policies. And to see if commanders are enforcing or ignoring those policies.

There has been speculation that a number of the new ICE agents that have been hired are military or law enforcement washouts, meaning that they wanted to join but were denied or didn’t make it through basic training/the academy or left under dubious circumstances. We do know that training for ICE agents in 2025 dropped from 16 weeks to about six to eight weeks. That’s a pretty short time to give someone a weapon and send them to deal with the American public. My training as an Army tanker lasted 16 weeks and then I was sent to my unit for further training. The New York State Police academy takes 26 weeks and then new officers are sent to work with a Field Training Officer for two months before they are allowed to operate on their own. To me, that is an incredibly stark and alarming contrast between the training of an ICE agent and a US Soldier or NY State Trooper.

Besides policies and trainings, I believe there is something else that is being overlooked. Character.

In 2018, I ran a group for the mothers of State Troopers who had died in the line of duty. I was deeply struck when one grieving mother uttered “We all had the same son.” Their boys were sarcastic and joked a lot. They could be difficult about getting their way. But they always showed up and tried to be helpful. They wanted to protect the weak. Whether they were on or off-duty, they shoveled peoples’ driveways and changed strangers’ tires. In short, they were good.

It is fair to ask what kind of background checks, screenings and interviews ICE is conducting. Because, I would argue, the kind of individual who would use a child as bait, invade the home of a mostly unclothed old man and take him out into the cold and chemically spray an already restrained individual is not good. As I stated at the start of this essay, you can sometimes learn a lot about a person from a single moment.

I believe it is a reasonable expectation that Americans know the name and organization of a government agent and can see their face. If we need to put it to a county, state or national vote, put it to a vote.

A quality government agent speaks calmy and respectfully. They are good at de-escalating. They help those that are weaker, particularly the elderly, kids, people with a disability and anyone in crisis. An ideal agent might have the added traits of being warm, kind and funny.

To make someone else angry is the lowest of all social skills. That’s why I have problems with so many people who make their living on the internet. Outrage engages. Outrage sells. But it is absolutely terrible for individual mental health and society as a whole.

In contrast, the ability to make someone feel safe, calm someone down and/or to laugh are among the very highest of social skills. Those are the kind of people we want in positions of authority.

Many of the ICE agents that are currently operating in Minneapolis appear to me to be weak, scared, callous and amoral. This looks less like modern U.S. law enforcement and more like practices we explicitly trained against. It is disheartening. It doesn’t have to be that way.

If you are a concerned citizen and are wondering what you can do in regards to how ICE is behaving in Minneapolis (or other places), here are a few things you can do:

• film them
• photograph them
• document what you saw, where you saw it and when you saw it

Don’t engage them in violence. It just escalates things. That written, if you are concerned about where things are heading and want to be completely prepared for the worst of scenarios, consider legally purchasing a fire arm and getting training with it. To be clear, if you purchase a fire arm, you should also purchase a safe. And I have a strong belief that if you own a fire arm, you might also want to purchase some body armor.

During these ICE rampages, I have often wondered where are the NRA folks who were worried about ” federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms attacking law-abiding citizens.” Where are the people who bought guns because they were concerned about tyranny and masked government agents asking for their papers?

It’s important that reasonable Americans with strong, universal moral values own guns. Sigh. What a world we live in now.

I’ll close with how an Army Veteran who served for 35 years described the ICE agents in Minneapolis:

“weak, cowardly pussies”

---

This piece from the New York Times was published this morning as I was working on this. It has a number of videos and goes into further detail about some of the incidents I cited.

I recommend checking out the work of Steve Vladeck. He is a lawyer who explains Supreme Court rulings.

I also recommend the work of Leighton Woodhouse, who has written about the erosion of Christian values in Trump’s America and the attack on uniform Civil Rights.

---

As I was working on this, another US Citizen (a legal gun owner exercising his 2nd Amendment rights) was murdered by ICE agents in Minneapolis this morning. He was an ICU nurse with no history of any legal issues. He provided services for veterans.

---

Disclosure: During research and drafting, I used an AI system to review relevant case law and legal standards, including use-of-force doctrine, for framing purposes. All interpretations, applications and conclusions in this article are my own.