OK, I'm Not Really A Cowboy has a post on treating depression via stimulation of the Vagus Nerve. It makes some intuitive sense, as that would activate parasympathetic responses. But the time frame (1-2 years) suggests something else might be happening.
I would like to add to that the work Sidney Kennedy is doing in Canada on Deep Brain Stimulation. Goldberg down at Brown University noted the same thing anecdotally when they were using DBS for treating Parkinson's, but I don't know if they're doing anything more.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Hollywood Frontrunners
I saw a stars magazine at the doctor's office: People, or Entertainment Weekly or something like that, from December of 2001. It had a special article about Hollywood stars who were going to entertain the troops overseas. Mariah Carey, Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez - it was all very nice. (I had never seen Mariah Carey before. Very pretty woman.)
Two names jumped out at me. I had thought that George Clooney and Julia Roberts were among the recent antiwar crowd. Huh. But there they were, hugging up to soldiers during the Afghan War.
Two names jumped out at me. I had thought that George Clooney and Julia Roberts were among the recent antiwar crowd. Huh. But there they were, hugging up to soldiers during the Afghan War.
Harder To Imagine
Summary: Climate change is a popular problem to solve because it looks easy and straightforward. The costs are mostly invisible and the dangers easy to imagine. Contrasted to this, the costs of the GWOT are highly visible and the dangers hard to imagine.
The costs of reducing carbon emissions will be borne by Someone Else, won’t they? We’ll make the auto manufacturers have higher gas standards, which will cost us an extra coupla hundred when we buy a new car, which is hardly ever. Painless. Plus we’ll be able to smile contentedly when all those yahoos have to ditch their SUV’s. They’re the ones ruining it for the rest of us, y’know. We’ll make the oil companies refine better, or look harder, or something. But mostly we’ll stop them from ripping us all off with their big salaries and stock options and whatever. Make them look under the sofa cushions for a change, the bastards.
It’s hard to imagine jobs that don’t get created, isn’t it? What do the jobs look like? Do they make things, or sell things, or move information, or what? So all that blather about slowing down the economy sounds dire in theory, but nobody actually gets hurt, right? Or at least we won’t be able to identify who got hurt. My job doesn’t have anything to do with oil. Conservation is the key. The kids have been bringing home save-the-environment posters from school for years with great ideas of how we can recycle and use less energy. It’s just a matter of putting your mind to it, like taking your vitamins or cutting down on fats. We can do it!
If we don’t do it, it means dead wallabies. Those are awful cute. Dead fish, which make the lake look gross. We’ll lose biodiversity, meaning that we’ll have fewer kinds of plants and animals, but more of each kind. And this is bad because… because eventually it gets away from you, and nothing can live anymore. We may have already passed the point of no return.
Hunks of glacier falling into the ocean, which makes the oceans rise. Fast. Didn’t you see the movie? Hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, all killing people and showing up on the news. That’s what will happen if we don’t reduce our carbon emissions now.
The opposite is true. Kyoto-style changes are going to cost you personally a bundle. Just because it’s not visible, like gas prices or an ATM fee, doesn’t mean it’s not real. It will be the better job you’ll never get, the lack of opportunity - which encourages your kids to move away, the year of college that you had to take on in debt, the fewer times you travel to see your grandkids. And the drastic environmental consequences you imagine aren’t going to happen. Aren’t going to happen because of carbon emissions, that is.
The GWOT, now, those costs actually are being borne by only a few. The cost to you actually is more like an ATM fee. It’s soldiers and their families that are paying the price. The cost to the US in citizen’s lives is not only a high cost, but a highly visible cost. Airport security delays are highly visible. (Phone surveillance can be made to seem highly visible, conjuring images of some creepy guy listening to your wife’s calls.) Also, the big numbers of dollars that fly across the page, the cumulative total of four years of war, that makes us nervous. We were spending about half that keeping Iraq contained anyway. Because it’s money spent, rather than money never made, we think of it as real money instead of pretend money, and of money in one lump sum instead of spread out over time. It’s an understandable error; but it’s still an error. If it’s that hard to imagine, try picturing yourself without a job, or one of your kids without a job. Money not made is real money.
The costs of reducing carbon emissions will be borne by Someone Else, won’t they? We’ll make the auto manufacturers have higher gas standards, which will cost us an extra coupla hundred when we buy a new car, which is hardly ever. Painless. Plus we’ll be able to smile contentedly when all those yahoos have to ditch their SUV’s. They’re the ones ruining it for the rest of us, y’know. We’ll make the oil companies refine better, or look harder, or something. But mostly we’ll stop them from ripping us all off with their big salaries and stock options and whatever. Make them look under the sofa cushions for a change, the bastards.
It’s hard to imagine jobs that don’t get created, isn’t it? What do the jobs look like? Do they make things, or sell things, or move information, or what? So all that blather about slowing down the economy sounds dire in theory, but nobody actually gets hurt, right? Or at least we won’t be able to identify who got hurt. My job doesn’t have anything to do with oil. Conservation is the key. The kids have been bringing home save-the-environment posters from school for years with great ideas of how we can recycle and use less energy. It’s just a matter of putting your mind to it, like taking your vitamins or cutting down on fats. We can do it!
If we don’t do it, it means dead wallabies. Those are awful cute. Dead fish, which make the lake look gross. We’ll lose biodiversity, meaning that we’ll have fewer kinds of plants and animals, but more of each kind. And this is bad because… because eventually it gets away from you, and nothing can live anymore. We may have already passed the point of no return.
Hunks of glacier falling into the ocean, which makes the oceans rise. Fast. Didn’t you see the movie? Hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, all killing people and showing up on the news. That’s what will happen if we don’t reduce our carbon emissions now.
The opposite is true. Kyoto-style changes are going to cost you personally a bundle. Just because it’s not visible, like gas prices or an ATM fee, doesn’t mean it’s not real. It will be the better job you’ll never get, the lack of opportunity - which encourages your kids to move away, the year of college that you had to take on in debt, the fewer times you travel to see your grandkids. And the drastic environmental consequences you imagine aren’t going to happen. Aren’t going to happen because of carbon emissions, that is.
The GWOT, now, those costs actually are being borne by only a few. The cost to you actually is more like an ATM fee. It’s soldiers and their families that are paying the price. The cost to the US in citizen’s lives is not only a high cost, but a highly visible cost. Airport security delays are highly visible. (Phone surveillance can be made to seem highly visible, conjuring images of some creepy guy listening to your wife’s calls.) Also, the big numbers of dollars that fly across the page, the cumulative total of four years of war, that makes us nervous. We were spending about half that keeping Iraq contained anyway. Because it’s money spent, rather than money never made, we think of it as real money instead of pretend money, and of money in one lump sum instead of spread out over time. It’s an understandable error; but it’s still an error. If it’s that hard to imagine, try picturing yourself without a job, or one of your kids without a job. Money not made is real money.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Diversity Training
In previous years we had hospital-wide training on back safety, confidentiality, and infection control, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before we would all get herded in to conference rooms in groups of 20-30 for political training.
Sensitivity to foreign cultures is fine, but that’s not where our problem is. People who go into mental health have generic liberal prejudices. We are more likely to be fascinated by foreign cultures than disapproving. I grant that the fascination is often naïve and can be condescending. But for ill-disguised contempt, nothing beats our attitudes to certain American groups.
Diversity training was done in PowerPoint, of course. A woman from Colombia opened by lecturing us in Spanish, illustrating to us that we don’t speak Spanish and she does. Perhaps it’s news to some folks that when you don’t speak a language, you have trouble understanding what others are saying, but I thought I had that idea down pretty well already. Ironically, Gisella’s Spanish is now a bit hesitant, as she has been in the US for 40 years. She shared her “personal story.”
Next there was a short cartoon of a wombat who explained to us that we’re all in this together because there’s only one planet. Trees, insects, rocks, cute kids in may hues, it’s all together, y’know? All one. Diversity training seemed to be suddenly veering off into environmental and religious instruction when we were quickly returned (whew!) to Cambodian folk medicine. Not that this will help you understand Ghanian or even Thai folk medicine when you encounter it, but it’s definitely cool, and not to be despised. Got that, you bigoted buffoons? Maybe the wombat wasn’t so bad after all.
I noted to the diversity instructor that translators often bring problems of their own, because they are often drawn from a different class in society. Translating gives them one of their few remaining opportunities to exercise their old hatreds, as friends of ours found when they tried to get accurate school testing for their new Romanian gypsy daughter. My suggestion was unwelcome. Translators are the chosen solution.
To psychologists and social workers, it's hunters who are suspect. No one comes right out and says that, of course, but the sudden seriousness of murmur and catch in the voice is unmistakable. “There are guns in the house,” or “he owns a gun.” That’s a reasonable concern if the person has threatened violence or suicide, but it’s also used as code-speak for possible wife-beater, limited coping skills. “Isn’t there something we can do to get the guns out of the house?” “We should ask the wife if she feels safe.”
Threatening actual violence to a president is a mixed bag. If you just smash paintings in the gallery of college presidents because you think they’re George Bush and Pat Robertson, all you will draw is covered smirks. Even if you wave a knife around later. At least, that’s what happened here last week. Laughingly suggest it would be a good idea to shoot Bush and Cheney? That won’t raise any red flags – just jokes that my colleagues thought were out of my hearing. Trying to run into the Bush motorcade with your car? Are we sure she’s crazy? Ha ha. Some of us wish she’d succeeded. Ha ha. I’ve been here long enough to recall how seriously comments about Clinton were taken. I remember the quiet declarations then: I’m very uncomfortable letting this person back onto the streets.
It’s not only PC prejudices, of course. Clinicians try not to obviously stereotype gay couples, but they do covertly. Gay therapists seem especially hard on the transgendered. It’s not always easy to see the difference between “understanding gay/Sudanese/reservation/urban black culture” and “stereotyping gays/Sudanese/Navajos/urban blacks.” There is an interesting dynamic with the prejudices of the line staff, however. Your diagnosis, and thus how insulting and difficult to manage you are, will be a much bigger issue than whether you are rich, poor, gay, straight, or what color you are. They might tie your pathology to your group memberships and say the most impolitic things about you, but if you are pleasant and polite they will turn around next day and see your sociopolitical status as a positive: He’s just a sweet old gay guy, but that bothers his neighbors so they’re harassing him. The exception to this would be a child molester. Your politeness will only make people more nervous then.
But hey, back to the training, what? Slide 15: Immigrants come from many places. Slide 16: Not all Hispanic dialects are the same.
There are bigotry buttons you can press all day in the psych biz, and no one will raise a brow. Some kinds of diversity are not to be celebrated, and no one creates animations with wombats and cute kids to make sure you’re treated well.
The military is a place for people who “need a certain amount of structure.” As opposed to say, lawyers and university professors, right?
Serious Catholics are “rigid” but find “comfort” in their faith. (They probably also have hidden sexual issues.) Unlike those of us who work for large government social service bureaucracies.
People from states which voted 51-49 red are less educated and more violent than people who came from states which went 51-49 blue.
For more of the same, see my earlier post on multicultural tips for human services.
Sensitivity to foreign cultures is fine, but that’s not where our problem is. People who go into mental health have generic liberal prejudices. We are more likely to be fascinated by foreign cultures than disapproving. I grant that the fascination is often naïve and can be condescending. But for ill-disguised contempt, nothing beats our attitudes to certain American groups.
Diversity training was done in PowerPoint, of course. A woman from Colombia opened by lecturing us in Spanish, illustrating to us that we don’t speak Spanish and she does. Perhaps it’s news to some folks that when you don’t speak a language, you have trouble understanding what others are saying, but I thought I had that idea down pretty well already. Ironically, Gisella’s Spanish is now a bit hesitant, as she has been in the US for 40 years. She shared her “personal story.”
Next there was a short cartoon of a wombat who explained to us that we’re all in this together because there’s only one planet. Trees, insects, rocks, cute kids in may hues, it’s all together, y’know? All one. Diversity training seemed to be suddenly veering off into environmental and religious instruction when we were quickly returned (whew!) to Cambodian folk medicine. Not that this will help you understand Ghanian or even Thai folk medicine when you encounter it, but it’s definitely cool, and not to be despised. Got that, you bigoted buffoons? Maybe the wombat wasn’t so bad after all.
I noted to the diversity instructor that translators often bring problems of their own, because they are often drawn from a different class in society. Translating gives them one of their few remaining opportunities to exercise their old hatreds, as friends of ours found when they tried to get accurate school testing for their new Romanian gypsy daughter. My suggestion was unwelcome. Translators are the chosen solution.
To psychologists and social workers, it's hunters who are suspect. No one comes right out and says that, of course, but the sudden seriousness of murmur and catch in the voice is unmistakable. “There are guns in the house,” or “he owns a gun.” That’s a reasonable concern if the person has threatened violence or suicide, but it’s also used as code-speak for possible wife-beater, limited coping skills. “Isn’t there something we can do to get the guns out of the house?” “We should ask the wife if she feels safe.”
Threatening actual violence to a president is a mixed bag. If you just smash paintings in the gallery of college presidents because you think they’re George Bush and Pat Robertson, all you will draw is covered smirks. Even if you wave a knife around later. At least, that’s what happened here last week. Laughingly suggest it would be a good idea to shoot Bush and Cheney? That won’t raise any red flags – just jokes that my colleagues thought were out of my hearing. Trying to run into the Bush motorcade with your car? Are we sure she’s crazy? Ha ha. Some of us wish she’d succeeded. Ha ha. I’ve been here long enough to recall how seriously comments about Clinton were taken. I remember the quiet declarations then: I’m very uncomfortable letting this person back onto the streets.
It’s not only PC prejudices, of course. Clinicians try not to obviously stereotype gay couples, but they do covertly. Gay therapists seem especially hard on the transgendered. It’s not always easy to see the difference between “understanding gay/Sudanese/reservation/urban black culture” and “stereotyping gays/Sudanese/Navajos/urban blacks.” There is an interesting dynamic with the prejudices of the line staff, however. Your diagnosis, and thus how insulting and difficult to manage you are, will be a much bigger issue than whether you are rich, poor, gay, straight, or what color you are. They might tie your pathology to your group memberships and say the most impolitic things about you, but if you are pleasant and polite they will turn around next day and see your sociopolitical status as a positive: He’s just a sweet old gay guy, but that bothers his neighbors so they’re harassing him. The exception to this would be a child molester. Your politeness will only make people more nervous then.
But hey, back to the training, what? Slide 15: Immigrants come from many places. Slide 16: Not all Hispanic dialects are the same.
There are bigotry buttons you can press all day in the psych biz, and no one will raise a brow. Some kinds of diversity are not to be celebrated, and no one creates animations with wombats and cute kids to make sure you’re treated well.
The military is a place for people who “need a certain amount of structure.” As opposed to say, lawyers and university professors, right?
Serious Catholics are “rigid” but find “comfort” in their faith. (They probably also have hidden sexual issues.) Unlike those of us who work for large government social service bureaucracies.
People from states which voted 51-49 red are less educated and more violent than people who came from states which went 51-49 blue.
For more of the same, see my earlier post on multicultural tips for human services.
Monday, May 29, 2006
More World Cup Info (for you ungrateful clowns)
You've already shown you aren't interested in the preliminaries designed to reduce the 32 remaining teams to 16. But if you have any national feeling at all, you have to be alert to the draw for the US team. We have the most difficult draw of any team in the tournament. We are in the only group of four which has 3 excellent teams (France and Spain, in contrast, should walk through to the round of 16), and if we finish second in that group (very possible, as the Czechs are #2 in the world), we will be rewarded by playing Brazil, #1 in the world, in the next round.
Technically, I suppose, you could say the Italians have a tougher draw because they have to play the US, ranked anywhere from #5-9 in the world, as well as the Czechs and Brazilians.
The Czech Republic has some injuries. That might help us squeeze by.
Technically, I suppose, you could say the Italians have a tougher draw because they have to play the US, ranked anywhere from #5-9 in the world, as well as the Czechs and Brazilians.
The Czech Republic has some injuries. That might help us squeeze by.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Girl Names, Boy Names
Names given to boys have been more stable over time. Michael became the most popular name for boys over fifty years ago, and has been #1 most years since. David supplanted it for a few years in the 1960's and Jacob has pushed it into 2nd in the 21st C, but that's a very long run. In that time, Mary, Lisa, and Jennifer have each enjoyed runs of about 10-15 years atop the list. None of these have even been in the top 10 since 1992, when Jessica rose to the top, quickly replaced by Emily.
My son Benjamin, looking over the lists from the 1940's, commented that people still do name their sons James, Robert, John, William, Richard, David, Thomas, and even Charles, though most of those names are gone from the top 10 lists; but no one is naming their girls Barbara, Patricia, Carol, Judith, Betty, Nancy, or Linda.
Debra and Deborah fairly scream "born in the 50's!"
Boys' names start to show more rapid turnover in the late 1980's. With the exception of the addition of Joshua and Justin, the others on the1990 list would not have seemed odd to people in the 1930's: Michael, Christopher, Matthew, David, Daniel, Andrew, Joseph, and James. At that point the rapid change starts, with Nicholas, Brandon, Ryan, Zachary, Jacob, and Austin jumping in.
The girls' names were already in 70% turnover per decade by the late 60's and are now up to almost 80% turnover. Only Samantha and Ashley remain from the 1995 list. For those who haven't been keeping up with this, Emma, Madison, Olivia, Isabella, and Hannah are now the fashionable names. I knew only one Hannah growing up: Hannah Handler, the rabbi's daughter, on whom I had a crush in 4th grade.
Do we regard "decorating" our daughters with avant garde names more important? If there is a stereotype, which way does it flow? Is it a positive that we work so hard to find something special for the girls, while boys can just be given any regular ol' name? Or is this specialness a sort of frilly unseriousness about females?
And hey, why do girls get to keep stealing boys' names, rendering them useless to guys forever?
My son Benjamin, looking over the lists from the 1940's, commented that people still do name their sons James, Robert, John, William, Richard, David, Thomas, and even Charles, though most of those names are gone from the top 10 lists; but no one is naming their girls Barbara, Patricia, Carol, Judith, Betty, Nancy, or Linda.
Debra and Deborah fairly scream "born in the 50's!"
Boys' names start to show more rapid turnover in the late 1980's. With the exception of the addition of Joshua and Justin, the others on the1990 list would not have seemed odd to people in the 1930's: Michael, Christopher, Matthew, David, Daniel, Andrew, Joseph, and James. At that point the rapid change starts, with Nicholas, Brandon, Ryan, Zachary, Jacob, and Austin jumping in.
The girls' names were already in 70% turnover per decade by the late 60's and are now up to almost 80% turnover. Only Samantha and Ashley remain from the 1995 list. For those who haven't been keeping up with this, Emma, Madison, Olivia, Isabella, and Hannah are now the fashionable names. I knew only one Hannah growing up: Hannah Handler, the rabbi's daughter, on whom I had a crush in 4th grade.
Do we regard "decorating" our daughters with avant garde names more important? If there is a stereotype, which way does it flow? Is it a positive that we work so hard to find something special for the girls, while boys can just be given any regular ol' name? Or is this specialness a sort of frilly unseriousness about females?
And hey, why do girls get to keep stealing boys' names, rendering them useless to guys forever?
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Reprise of the Psychbloggers
I read so many things worth saving, but can't take on the weight of the world with that. I'm not really a link-site sorta guy. But I thought I could reprise some comments from other psychbloggers, helping their ideas resist the long twilight of digital storage.
Actually, that they will be stored at all, to be absorbed in seconds by robots smarter than us in 2040 after the Singularity, is a better fate than most thinkers have had before the 21st C. But until then, we poor humans must do the work ourselves, sharing wisdom as we find it. The following articles are buried in psychblogger archives but have stayed with me and seem worth exhuming.
Gagdad Bob over at OneCosmos had an analysis of the liberal ghost dance that I found truly original and provoking.
Dr. Sanity plays on the themes of defense mechanisms as they relate to groups quite often, and is impossible to summarise on that. But her analysis (she tag-teamed nicely with neo-neocon on this) of shame and guilt cultures is an excellent introduction to her thought.
Neo-neocon writes thoughtfully and wisely on a wide range of subjects, and her commenters are often worth reading as well. I chose her series on the varieties of pacifism as particularly good, and I liked her thoughts on why therapists tend to be liberal.
Shrinkette tends to be a link site, so I don't have anything special from her, but she finds things no one else does and is always interesting. GM's Corner and Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred also link heavily, but I have kept the former's reflections on cancer and the latter's psychiatrist's observations on a meeting both stuck in the memory.
Shrinkwrapped tends to have continuity of subject without being repetitive. The series on Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia was particularly good.
OK So I'm Not Really A Cowboy is new, I think, and trying to start up a Carnival of Psychbloggers. I'm not going to single anything of his out, as I've only been reading him a few days. Smart and funny.
Dr. Helen doesn't need any help from me, right?
You can touch down anywhere in my archives and become rapidly wise, of course. It's a natural talent I have.
Actually, that they will be stored at all, to be absorbed in seconds by robots smarter than us in 2040 after the Singularity, is a better fate than most thinkers have had before the 21st C. But until then, we poor humans must do the work ourselves, sharing wisdom as we find it. The following articles are buried in psychblogger archives but have stayed with me and seem worth exhuming.
Gagdad Bob over at OneCosmos had an analysis of the liberal ghost dance that I found truly original and provoking.
Dr. Sanity plays on the themes of defense mechanisms as they relate to groups quite often, and is impossible to summarise on that. But her analysis (she tag-teamed nicely with neo-neocon on this) of shame and guilt cultures is an excellent introduction to her thought.
Neo-neocon writes thoughtfully and wisely on a wide range of subjects, and her commenters are often worth reading as well. I chose her series on the varieties of pacifism as particularly good, and I liked her thoughts on why therapists tend to be liberal.
Shrinkette tends to be a link site, so I don't have anything special from her, but she finds things no one else does and is always interesting. GM's Corner and Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred also link heavily, but I have kept the former's reflections on cancer and the latter's psychiatrist's observations on a meeting both stuck in the memory.
Shrinkwrapped tends to have continuity of subject without being repetitive. The series on Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia was particularly good.
OK So I'm Not Really A Cowboy is new, I think, and trying to start up a Carnival of Psychbloggers. I'm not going to single anything of his out, as I've only been reading him a few days. Smart and funny.
Dr. Helen doesn't need any help from me, right?
You can touch down anywhere in my archives and become rapidly wise, of course. It's a natural talent I have.
Welcome To The Coliseum
Watergate was a fox-and-hounds story and had a nice linear plot that people could follow. That oversimplification was never true, of course. There were legitimate constitutional and separation of powers issues, and the usual horde of folks angling how they could advance their careers in the confusion. But these rapidly became entirely secondary to the main chase. We are used to these sorts of political narratives – Ham Jordan, Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton. Buy a program, root for your side, but the story line remained linear. Like a good crime thriller, there might be false trails and entertaining side plots, but the good Aristotelean unity remained.
In retrospect, the linearity was already fraying with the Gingrich and Clinton episodes, but only in the 21st C has the dynamic changed sufficiently that we need a new sports metaphor. It is not just the Democrats and Republicans taking turns at fox-and-hounds. The Department of Justice battles the Congress. CIA competes with State to undermine the FBI conspiring with the NSA against the DoD, and each agency has internal factions as well. It is now the Coliseum, with bears, dogs, lions, wolves, and men all thrown in together, an unclear melee with unclear plot. Ashcroft wanted to reform INS, Rumsfeld wants to remake the Pentagon, Condi Rice wants to get the State department to carry out American policy rather than override it, and all of this plays out in front of us.
Plays out in front of us. That is the difference. That is the Alvin Toffler Future Shock adjustment that we are making. The new media not only reveals the subterranean struggles which have always been present in these events, but changes them as well. The moves and countermoves between parties, branches, and agencies used to take place in measured time. Now the scandals and accusations ebb and flow so quickly that reaction time has become part of the battle. We the spectators influence events with our roars and judgements.
What we are seeing in Washington in the last few months is a sort of information anarchy. Have we won or lost the war, or are we still plodding? Is illegal immigration an emergency or a long-term advantage? Is the congress defending the constitution or covering its butt? Is the president intruding on our liberties or just fighting the war? We have always wanted to know the answers to these questions, but in 2006 we want to know the answers now. Because the answer to the first question influences our response to the fourth question, which helps us answer the second and third. There is no longer time to let an answer settle down before we respond. The spinmeisters used to worry about changing peoples’ minds; now they just manage impressions temporarily.
An agency or politician with a scandal used to hope to ride it out, deflecting attention until the news cycle tired of the story. If the spotlight shifted to another circus ring in time, they could briefly hide, lick wounds, and heal. Now the light is never completely off. The spotlight switches rings more rapidly, but darkness no longer provides cover. The lights can come up full again at any moment.
In retrospect, the linearity was already fraying with the Gingrich and Clinton episodes, but only in the 21st C has the dynamic changed sufficiently that we need a new sports metaphor. It is not just the Democrats and Republicans taking turns at fox-and-hounds. The Department of Justice battles the Congress. CIA competes with State to undermine the FBI conspiring with the NSA against the DoD, and each agency has internal factions as well. It is now the Coliseum, with bears, dogs, lions, wolves, and men all thrown in together, an unclear melee with unclear plot. Ashcroft wanted to reform INS, Rumsfeld wants to remake the Pentagon, Condi Rice wants to get the State department to carry out American policy rather than override it, and all of this plays out in front of us.
Plays out in front of us. That is the difference. That is the Alvin Toffler Future Shock adjustment that we are making. The new media not only reveals the subterranean struggles which have always been present in these events, but changes them as well. The moves and countermoves between parties, branches, and agencies used to take place in measured time. Now the scandals and accusations ebb and flow so quickly that reaction time has become part of the battle. We the spectators influence events with our roars and judgements.
What we are seeing in Washington in the last few months is a sort of information anarchy. Have we won or lost the war, or are we still plodding? Is illegal immigration an emergency or a long-term advantage? Is the congress defending the constitution or covering its butt? Is the president intruding on our liberties or just fighting the war? We have always wanted to know the answers to these questions, but in 2006 we want to know the answers now. Because the answer to the first question influences our response to the fourth question, which helps us answer the second and third. There is no longer time to let an answer settle down before we respond. The spinmeisters used to worry about changing peoples’ minds; now they just manage impressions temporarily.
An agency or politician with a scandal used to hope to ride it out, deflecting attention until the news cycle tired of the story. If the spotlight shifted to another circus ring in time, they could briefly hide, lick wounds, and heal. Now the light is never completely off. The spotlight switches rings more rapidly, but darkness no longer provides cover. The lights can come up full again at any moment.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
That 60's Theology
Almost 20% of the faculty at Boston College has signed a letter by two theology professors protesting that institution granting of an honorary degree to Condi Rice. An excellent summary of the issue by Anil Adyanthaya is here.
Because Dr. Rice is one of the architects of an "unjust war," and her article in 2000 in Foreign Affairs, the professors believe that her ideas are incompatible with Catholic and Jesuit thought, and should not be thus exalted.
Let me guess. Their step-by-step through the Just War doctrine specifies the UN as the legitimate authority. Yes, I believe it was Athanasius, or perhaps Anselm who specified that the legitimate authority was a collection of the governments of many nations, regardless of their individual moral authority. No other answer is possible.
I have commented previously on the holiness that the American left assigns to transnationalism. Because the Church is transnational, it must follow, as the night does the day, that transnational groups are holier than the merely national. To seek America's best interest is necessarily flawed; universal interest must dictate our affairs.
I am curious whether the professors apply that principle more universally. They are educators, and their job is to educate the young. But if BC recruits a professor from a larger school, isn't BC's educational excellence achieved at the expense of the larger world? If BC accepts talented students, are they not stealing them from Brandeis? The idea that a person might be assigned by God to protect a certain interest or group of people seems incompatible with the professors' contention.
Because Dr. Rice is one of the architects of an "unjust war," and her article in 2000 in Foreign Affairs, the professors believe that her ideas are incompatible with Catholic and Jesuit thought, and should not be thus exalted.
Let me guess. Their step-by-step through the Just War doctrine specifies the UN as the legitimate authority. Yes, I believe it was Athanasius, or perhaps Anselm who specified that the legitimate authority was a collection of the governments of many nations, regardless of their individual moral authority. No other answer is possible.
I have commented previously on the holiness that the American left assigns to transnationalism. Because the Church is transnational, it must follow, as the night does the day, that transnational groups are holier than the merely national. To seek America's best interest is necessarily flawed; universal interest must dictate our affairs.
I am curious whether the professors apply that principle more universally. They are educators, and their job is to educate the young. But if BC recruits a professor from a larger school, isn't BC's educational excellence achieved at the expense of the larger world? If BC accepts talented students, are they not stealing them from Brandeis? The idea that a person might be assigned by God to protect a certain interest or group of people seems incompatible with the professors' contention.
That 70's Show
Hillary Clinton gave a major energy speech before the National Press Club and promises a major energy proposal shortly. Her solutions:
Okay, before we get to that, is there anyone who didn't guess her solutions beforehand? Conservation, of the "if everyone gave one used bicycle tire per week, no kitties would ever die" variety. Research, of the unspecified alternative energy type. And leadership, of the not-what-George-Bush-is-doing variety, to definitely include sticking it to the auto industry and the oil companies.
She was right on target with these, with a speech that reads like a Mother Earth News editorial from 1978. But there are cute additions that I think you should know about. She thinks there should be signs at every gas station reminding you to check the air in your tires. 55 mph "where people would support it." Eliminating drafts around doors and windows. Reasearch now avoids the scientific-sounding but unknown "geothermal" and replaces it with the scientific-sounding but unknown "biomass." The leadership involves Bush sitting down with the automakers, oil companies, as well as both the public and private sectors, presumably to make everyone straighten up and fly right.
But wait, there's more! The Clinton energy plan now comes with ethanol! And not just any ethanol, Binky, but cellulosic ethanol. How many of you think Hillary Clinton knew the word "cellulosic" before this energy speech was planned? I don't want to keep seeing the same hands here. It's a wonk word, inserted to show that she has really, really thought about these issues, people. Not like the other candi- that is, public servants.
This degree of understanding would not win a ribbon at a middle school science fair, even with "cellulosic" sprinkled on every stapled-up poster.
Okay, before we get to that, is there anyone who didn't guess her solutions beforehand? Conservation, of the "if everyone gave one used bicycle tire per week, no kitties would ever die" variety. Research, of the unspecified alternative energy type. And leadership, of the not-what-George-Bush-is-doing variety, to definitely include sticking it to the auto industry and the oil companies.
She was right on target with these, with a speech that reads like a Mother Earth News editorial from 1978. But there are cute additions that I think you should know about. She thinks there should be signs at every gas station reminding you to check the air in your tires. 55 mph "where people would support it." Eliminating drafts around doors and windows. Reasearch now avoids the scientific-sounding but unknown "geothermal" and replaces it with the scientific-sounding but unknown "biomass." The leadership involves Bush sitting down with the automakers, oil companies, as well as both the public and private sectors, presumably to make everyone straighten up and fly right.
But wait, there's more! The Clinton energy plan now comes with ethanol! And not just any ethanol, Binky, but cellulosic ethanol. How many of you think Hillary Clinton knew the word "cellulosic" before this energy speech was planned? I don't want to keep seeing the same hands here. It's a wonk word, inserted to show that she has really, really thought about these issues, people. Not like the other candi- that is, public servants.
This degree of understanding would not win a ribbon at a middle school science fair, even with "cellulosic" sprinkled on every stapled-up poster.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Explaining the Law to Lawyers
It used to be rather amusing, when some attorney acting out of specialty or out of state advocating on behalf of one of my patients would insist that the hospital should take a particular action – usually to let the person go. “But he’s being held there against his will.” Yes, almost all our patients come here against their will; this is not a new concept to me after thirty years. “She has a right to hire whatever attorney she wants. She doesn’t have to accept counsel appointed by the state.” Yes, that’s true. But if it were me, I’d prefer the court-appointed attorneys who can do these hearings in their sleep. “He has the right to refuse treatment.” Yes, and we then have the right to hold him here as a danger to society. What’s your point, counselor?
I am certainly much their inferior in general questions of law. Rules of evidence? I'm guessing. Required procedure for submission? No clue. But mental health law in NH? Unless you're one of a dozen attorneys in the state (and I know you're not, clown), don't try to explain it to me. It's how I earn my daily bread.
Even I was never quite this snippy in my answers, though I was often tempted. Yet this mean pleasure does get old after awhile. New probable cause judges try the same tired things, which we let go for a few times if it doesn’t affect the patient, dropping hints or trying to explain. Very occasionally, we have to become more blunt. “That interpretation has been tried. It was overturned in 1991 in the Taylor decision.” It’s not that these legal minds are trying to sell bad ideas. These are usually reasonable approaches on first look. But laws overlap and contradict each other, and have to be sorted out on appeal. We shouldn’t have to keep going over it, unless someone’s got a new angle.
An unfair rule of thumb: the more angry and intimidating an attorney becomes about a broad principle, the less likely it is that s/he will prove correct in the end. (A friend who is a hearings officer tells me that the phrase “fundamental fairness” usually telegraphs that the attorney has no real case according to the statute.) The attorney can often make political points along the way, in both local and national cases. Institutions, corporations, or powerful individuals can be accused and made to look guilty. When the case is lost, accusers can complain that the defendants were let off “on a technicality,” or it can be hinted that they were favored in some unfair way. Such things happen, of course, especially if you’re a Kennedy in Massachusetts. But it’s good to have your antennae up and twitching. Sometimes the technicality is that there’s no hard evidence, and what you read in the papers was less than half the story.
I am certainly much their inferior in general questions of law. Rules of evidence? I'm guessing. Required procedure for submission? No clue. But mental health law in NH? Unless you're one of a dozen attorneys in the state (and I know you're not, clown), don't try to explain it to me. It's how I earn my daily bread.
Even I was never quite this snippy in my answers, though I was often tempted. Yet this mean pleasure does get old after awhile. New probable cause judges try the same tired things, which we let go for a few times if it doesn’t affect the patient, dropping hints or trying to explain. Very occasionally, we have to become more blunt. “That interpretation has been tried. It was overturned in 1991 in the Taylor decision.” It’s not that these legal minds are trying to sell bad ideas. These are usually reasonable approaches on first look. But laws overlap and contradict each other, and have to be sorted out on appeal. We shouldn’t have to keep going over it, unless someone’s got a new angle.
An unfair rule of thumb: the more angry and intimidating an attorney becomes about a broad principle, the less likely it is that s/he will prove correct in the end. (A friend who is a hearings officer tells me that the phrase “fundamental fairness” usually telegraphs that the attorney has no real case according to the statute.) The attorney can often make political points along the way, in both local and national cases. Institutions, corporations, or powerful individuals can be accused and made to look guilty. When the case is lost, accusers can complain that the defendants were let off “on a technicality,” or it can be hinted that they were favored in some unfair way. Such things happen, of course, especially if you’re a Kennedy in Massachusetts. But it’s good to have your antennae up and twitching. Sometimes the technicality is that there’s no hard evidence, and what you read in the papers was less than half the story.
Treatment of Sex Offenders - Important Side Issue
Team treatment of sexual offenders has advantages. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not all the same. While the various attempts to categorize them are not always in accord, it doesn’t take long in the field to learn that Charlie and Sam, accused of the same crime, are wildly different.
The threads of evasiveness, dishonesty, and reframing are quite consistent, however. It may be difficult to tease out whether the offender is lying to himself; there may not even be a clear answer to that. But however it is spun, the web of ambiguity will be there, like the plot of a spy novel with its red herrings, double-checks, and reversals. The first obstacle is getting clear, verifiable information. Rumors spring up and will not die. The victim was a fifteen and a half year old prostitute who accused him to get herself out of trouble. He intimidated little boys so effectively that none would testify. He was stalking his ex-wife. He has fantasies of torturing and killing people. He’s not dangerous, he just steals women’s underwear and it creeps them out. The offender is often a walking Rorschach test, a screen that the staff can use to display their general opinions.
Tangent: For those who enjoy a good paranoid fantasy, this is fertile ground. To be wrongly accused of a sexual crime would be an enormous Catch-22: the more harmless and normal you tried to appear, the more frightening you would become. Imagining yourself in any of the supporting roles of therapist, attorney, or family are other scripts that can be written in a variety of entertaining ways.
Back on topic: No matter how experienced and self-examining the individual clinician is, the need to irrationally believe, or irrationally disbelieve the occasional patient is very strong. If the patient has an Axis II disorder, the various rescuings and punishings of him by others complicates this further. A man who shows more-than-average contempt for women will be perceved as more dangerous (not without reason). A female offender will elicit intensified reaction for both rescue and punishment. The most cynical, I-think-they’re-all-lying-scum psych nurses* will inexplicably choose some one patient who they believe is being railroaded and misjudged. We are all susceptible to this, and I suspect some underlying need among human beings that prevents us from disbelieving everyone. There is a skepticism fatigue which lies in wait for us all.
*Not to pick on them in particular, though it may not be accidental that I imagined a psych nurse in that slot. I am also notoriously skeptical, but broaden it to the whole cast of characters. I don’t believe the husband, I don’t believe the wife; I don’t believe the victim, I don’t believe the accused. Nor do I disbelieve them. Yet even I get sucked in.
The threads of evasiveness, dishonesty, and reframing are quite consistent, however. It may be difficult to tease out whether the offender is lying to himself; there may not even be a clear answer to that. But however it is spun, the web of ambiguity will be there, like the plot of a spy novel with its red herrings, double-checks, and reversals. The first obstacle is getting clear, verifiable information. Rumors spring up and will not die. The victim was a fifteen and a half year old prostitute who accused him to get herself out of trouble. He intimidated little boys so effectively that none would testify. He was stalking his ex-wife. He has fantasies of torturing and killing people. He’s not dangerous, he just steals women’s underwear and it creeps them out. The offender is often a walking Rorschach test, a screen that the staff can use to display their general opinions.
Tangent: For those who enjoy a good paranoid fantasy, this is fertile ground. To be wrongly accused of a sexual crime would be an enormous Catch-22: the more harmless and normal you tried to appear, the more frightening you would become. Imagining yourself in any of the supporting roles of therapist, attorney, or family are other scripts that can be written in a variety of entertaining ways.
Back on topic: No matter how experienced and self-examining the individual clinician is, the need to irrationally believe, or irrationally disbelieve the occasional patient is very strong. If the patient has an Axis II disorder, the various rescuings and punishings of him by others complicates this further. A man who shows more-than-average contempt for women will be perceved as more dangerous (not without reason). A female offender will elicit intensified reaction for both rescue and punishment. The most cynical, I-think-they’re-all-lying-scum psych nurses* will inexplicably choose some one patient who they believe is being railroaded and misjudged. We are all susceptible to this, and I suspect some underlying need among human beings that prevents us from disbelieving everyone. There is a skepticism fatigue which lies in wait for us all.
*Not to pick on them in particular, though it may not be accidental that I imagined a psych nurse in that slot. I am also notoriously skeptical, but broaden it to the whole cast of characters. I don’t believe the husband, I don’t believe the wife; I don’t believe the victim, I don’t believe the accused. Nor do I disbelieve them. Yet even I get sucked in.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Reverse Immigration Speculation
Look, it's not like Texas and California are our favorite states, right?
If we give the four southwestern states to Mexico, we will essentially be giving Mexico to our four southwestern states, after a serious drop of two decades of the standard of living in those areas. The 66 million in those states will quickly dominate Mexico's politics. The new nation as a whole will suddenly be the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world.
Our own national politics will not be unbalanced: we will lose four Republican senators, three Democratic senators, and John McCain. Purplish-red Texas will be offset by purplish-blue California. They should have Mexico's corrupt government up to at least Louisiana standards in twenty years.
Redesigning the flag would not be a problem: four rows of 7, three rows of 6 stars. No need to change the national anthem or America the Beautiful, though we'd have to rework This Land Is Your Land.
All the liberals will no longer have to be bothered by living in a hegemon, the conservatives can take over that huge pile of oil in the Carribean without American fish-huggers interfering.
True, the level of college football will fall off considerably, but that can be rebuilt.
If we give the four southwestern states to Mexico, we will essentially be giving Mexico to our four southwestern states, after a serious drop of two decades of the standard of living in those areas. The 66 million in those states will quickly dominate Mexico's politics. The new nation as a whole will suddenly be the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world.
Our own national politics will not be unbalanced: we will lose four Republican senators, three Democratic senators, and John McCain. Purplish-red Texas will be offset by purplish-blue California. They should have Mexico's corrupt government up to at least Louisiana standards in twenty years.
Redesigning the flag would not be a problem: four rows of 7, three rows of 6 stars. No need to change the national anthem or America the Beautiful, though we'd have to rework This Land Is Your Land.
All the liberals will no longer have to be bothered by living in a hegemon, the conservatives can take over that huge pile of oil in the Carribean without American fish-huggers interfering.
True, the level of college football will fall off considerably, but that can be rebuilt.
Long Life, Again
I am discovering that the main advocates for living indefinitely seem to all come from small families. That figures. Perhaps the Roman Catholic discomfort at the goosing of human cells and tissues in efforts to extend life is less theological than it is practical experience.
Fr. Patrick: Sure and didn't I tell ye that another fahrty yares wi' your sister would be more than a reasonable soul could bear, Mary? But ye wouldn' listen naow, would ye? So here's both o' ye' wi' new hearts and livers and lookin' to live another fahrty. Fortunately for me, I'll be dyin' soon and be listenin' t' angels instead o' the likes o' the two of ye'.
Fr. Patrick: Sure and didn't I tell ye that another fahrty yares wi' your sister would be more than a reasonable soul could bear, Mary? But ye wouldn' listen naow, would ye? So here's both o' ye' wi' new hearts and livers and lookin' to live another fahrty. Fortunately for me, I'll be dyin' soon and be listenin' t' angels instead o' the likes o' the two of ye'.
Brain Links
MIT's Technology Review includes several articles of interest to the psych-interested.
Brain Nanotech and two biotech
articles. The last one discusses implantable devices for long-term medication delivery. What a blessing that would be for our patients.
Brain Nanotech and two biotech
articles. The last one discusses implantable devices for long-term medication delivery. What a blessing that would be for our patients.
How Things Look
In several current debates, a disguised form of the argument “But it looks bad” has been surfacing. In the discussion of building a border fence, concerns have been raised about the “message” that it sends, or how sad it is that such a structure symbolizes our relationship with Mexico - thank you Senator Durbin. My worry is whether it will do any good. That seems to me more important than how it looks.
Over at even the more reasonable liberal blogs, the Gitmo detainees and the supposed secret prisons are cause celebre more for appearances than substantive evidence. They are held without trial, or as Pooh might say, The Wrong Sort Of Trial, or they are not allowed to speak to journalists at Gitmo, so naturally the assumption is we must be mistreating them. No, it’s worse than that. We must be torturing them. The secret prisons, if they exist at all, are “in countries which routinely use torture.” But that evades the question of whther they remain under American supervision, and whether they actually are being mistreated. The transfer may be simply a psychological ploy. The stories themselves may be simply a psychological ploy.
But the test as to whether this is torture is very simple. Offer the hypothetical reasonable man a choice. You can be detained by Americans in Romania for an indeterminate length of time or you can be thrown in a shredder. You can be sent to solitary confinement for trying to contact a visiting journalist or the women in your family can be raped in front of you. Gee, that’s an awful tough choice, right?
The lawyerly mind seems to consider not having a hearing or not being able to talk to a journalist to be among the worst of evils. I fully admit it looks bad. I willingly grant that various abuses could be disguised in these ways. US courts may rule that these were inappropriate interventions. It may even turn out detainees were mistreated, and that people should be punished for that. But it’s just not the same thing. How it looks is only a minor point. How it is is what’s important.
I saw a recent photo of George Bush. He looks stupid. The particular expression they caught makes him look fish-faced. This sort of thing apparently bothers some people no end. They feel badly represented to the world by such a figure. Well, get over it. It doesn’t matter.
Over at even the more reasonable liberal blogs, the Gitmo detainees and the supposed secret prisons are cause celebre more for appearances than substantive evidence. They are held without trial, or as Pooh might say, The Wrong Sort Of Trial, or they are not allowed to speak to journalists at Gitmo, so naturally the assumption is we must be mistreating them. No, it’s worse than that. We must be torturing them. The secret prisons, if they exist at all, are “in countries which routinely use torture.” But that evades the question of whther they remain under American supervision, and whether they actually are being mistreated. The transfer may be simply a psychological ploy. The stories themselves may be simply a psychological ploy.
But the test as to whether this is torture is very simple. Offer the hypothetical reasonable man a choice. You can be detained by Americans in Romania for an indeterminate length of time or you can be thrown in a shredder. You can be sent to solitary confinement for trying to contact a visiting journalist or the women in your family can be raped in front of you. Gee, that’s an awful tough choice, right?
The lawyerly mind seems to consider not having a hearing or not being able to talk to a journalist to be among the worst of evils. I fully admit it looks bad. I willingly grant that various abuses could be disguised in these ways. US courts may rule that these were inappropriate interventions. It may even turn out detainees were mistreated, and that people should be punished for that. But it’s just not the same thing. How it looks is only a minor point. How it is is what’s important.
I saw a recent photo of George Bush. He looks stupid. The particular expression they caught makes him look fish-faced. This sort of thing apparently bothers some people no end. They feel badly represented to the world by such a figure. Well, get over it. It doesn’t matter.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The Pressure Is On
I will be gone for a week bringing Benjamin back from Kentucky. Everyone write something intelligent while I'm gone, y'hear?
Monday, May 08, 2006
NH Primary
The NH Primary vote is in February 2008. We used to expect candidates to show up about a year before the primary, but it's been creeping backward. So far John McCain has already visited, and I'm sure there are others under the radar, pretending that they just happened by to address the Chamber of Commerce in Warner or Woodstock. Shazzam! Is there a primary here? Well Golleee!
We took the older boys around to the speeches as part of their education when they were younger. Jonathan got to interview Dick Lugar and ask Bob Kerrey a question; Ben got to talk to George Bush and get his autograph. They were both impressed with the Secret Service agents at the free dinner sponsored by Al Gore in '88. The two Romanians are going to miss that experience somewhat. They arrived in 2001 (we celebrate their fifth anniversary here later this month), and in 2004 there was not a lot happening in the Republican primary. The educational experience of watching the Democrats did not appeal to Chris and John-Adrian. Their Romanian background makes them intensely anti-socialist, very pro-life, and pro-military for getting rid of bad guys, so they make me look like Howard Dean by comparison.
Not only have the midterm elections not occurred, the opposition candidates have not announced (In NH, Congressmen Bass and Bradley are moderate Republicans in a state that is slowly becoming Blue). But I expect the Presidential candidates to start showing up with increasing frequency. I might take on attendance at campaign events as a blogging responsibility. In the army of Davids, I actually am a David.
We took the older boys around to the speeches as part of their education when they were younger. Jonathan got to interview Dick Lugar and ask Bob Kerrey a question; Ben got to talk to George Bush and get his autograph. They were both impressed with the Secret Service agents at the free dinner sponsored by Al Gore in '88. The two Romanians are going to miss that experience somewhat. They arrived in 2001 (we celebrate their fifth anniversary here later this month), and in 2004 there was not a lot happening in the Republican primary. The educational experience of watching the Democrats did not appeal to Chris and John-Adrian. Their Romanian background makes them intensely anti-socialist, very pro-life, and pro-military for getting rid of bad guys, so they make me look like Howard Dean by comparison.
Not only have the midterm elections not occurred, the opposition candidates have not announced (In NH, Congressmen Bass and Bradley are moderate Republicans in a state that is slowly becoming Blue). But I expect the Presidential candidates to start showing up with increasing frequency. I might take on attendance at campaign events as a blogging responsibility. In the army of Davids, I actually am a David.
Step On A Crack
Step on a crack, break your mother’s back. It was a game we played as children, and I remember wondering whether the spaces between blocks counted as cracks. I never believed Mom would come to any harm, and don’t know anyone who did – just one of those mild superstitions. Once you had started, however, it was a problem stopping. Even if you didn’t believe there was any direct connection between misstepping on concrete and your mother’s spinal column, actually landing on a crack carried the suggestion that you didn’t care if it did. You, vicious child, were unwilling to make this tiny sacrifice for your Mummy. In front of God and everybody you were declaring that it was perfectly all right with you if she ended up in the hospital on your account. What had started as an amusement took on deep psychological significance, ripe with opportunities for guilt, parentification, revenge, and abandonment fears.
I wonder if something like this drives socialism. Mounds of data which indicate that when nations trade, both benefit, or long depressing observation of poor countries with abundant resources remaining poor because of socialist policies do not seem to dent the socialist mentality. To turn off the spigot of government solution would look as if we didn’t care what happens to the poor. Socialism makes a statement about ourselves that we like, regardless of the practical effect. I suspect this superstition of kindness is a motivator, not because I think leftists are necessarily self-serving, but because they leap so quickly to the accusation themselves. Any free-market proposal brings forth howls that the plutocrats are abandoning the poor, and the rich manipulating the system solely for their own gain. If they think it so readily about others, they must fear it in themselves. Stepping carefully shows that they really care about their mothers. Not like you, you heedless and ungrateful child.
What happens with most children is that they step on cracks through carelessness, clumsiness, or ceasing to play, and return home to find mother in excellent spirits and health. A few repetitions of this, and they can let the whole matter go as just a game. Still, a twinge might still arise the next time the phrase occurs to them. Of course it’s silly, but why take the chance?* Worse, it will eventually occur to them: there are mothers whose backs are broken. Their children must have stepped on a crack sometime in their lives. Could it be…nah! But what if?
Even in rich, free-market countries there are poor people. Does that mean some capitalist stepped on a crack, driving them to destitution? It is an article of faith that one person’s wealth is related to another’s poverty, but I don’t think that connection is established in reality.
*Collect enough of these little rituals you can’t drop, or have some very intense ones, and you have obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD. It is now classified as an anxiety disorder; the repetitions and incantations are seen as attempts to bind anxiety. They are often things that do have a meaning or connection with reality, but have gone beyond rationality. It is good to recheck the locks when you leave the house, good to wash your hands, good to make your letters carefully. Checking the locks 5 times is a bit much.
I wonder if something like this drives socialism. Mounds of data which indicate that when nations trade, both benefit, or long depressing observation of poor countries with abundant resources remaining poor because of socialist policies do not seem to dent the socialist mentality. To turn off the spigot of government solution would look as if we didn’t care what happens to the poor. Socialism makes a statement about ourselves that we like, regardless of the practical effect. I suspect this superstition of kindness is a motivator, not because I think leftists are necessarily self-serving, but because they leap so quickly to the accusation themselves. Any free-market proposal brings forth howls that the plutocrats are abandoning the poor, and the rich manipulating the system solely for their own gain. If they think it so readily about others, they must fear it in themselves. Stepping carefully shows that they really care about their mothers. Not like you, you heedless and ungrateful child.
What happens with most children is that they step on cracks through carelessness, clumsiness, or ceasing to play, and return home to find mother in excellent spirits and health. A few repetitions of this, and they can let the whole matter go as just a game. Still, a twinge might still arise the next time the phrase occurs to them. Of course it’s silly, but why take the chance?* Worse, it will eventually occur to them: there are mothers whose backs are broken. Their children must have stepped on a crack sometime in their lives. Could it be…nah! But what if?
Even in rich, free-market countries there are poor people. Does that mean some capitalist stepped on a crack, driving them to destitution? It is an article of faith that one person’s wealth is related to another’s poverty, but I don’t think that connection is established in reality.
*Collect enough of these little rituals you can’t drop, or have some very intense ones, and you have obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD. It is now classified as an anxiety disorder; the repetitions and incantations are seen as attempts to bind anxiety. They are often things that do have a meaning or connection with reality, but have gone beyond rationality. It is good to recheck the locks when you leave the house, good to wash your hands, good to make your letters carefully. Checking the locks 5 times is a bit much.
Real World
Benjamin graduates from Asbury College this Sunday. It is traditional at graduation for someone to make snide comments about entering the “real world.” Of course, whatever you do in life, someone will tell you it’s not the Real World. My in-laws complained years ago about a new priest who didn’t have much real world experience. He had previously been running a Korean orphanage. Sounds pretty real to me. I work at a psychiatric hospital, and am paid by the taxpayers via the State of NH. Is that the real world? Dunno.
Those guys in the military, who supposedly need to be told what to do and have trouble adjusting to the real world, or teachers and professors who spend their days with the young, or at-home moms who don’t get out much – I guess that’s not the real world either. If you work off-shifts and sleep when other people are up, or spend most of your day at a computer screen, how real is that? If you trade commodities but never see any actual oil or wheat, then you are clearly not connected to the “real” world. Ministers, retirees, entertainers and athletes, wealthy people, those on wlefare – pretty much everyone, I guess.
The guys at Home Depot – I think they may be real
Those guys in the military, who supposedly need to be told what to do and have trouble adjusting to the real world, or teachers and professors who spend their days with the young, or at-home moms who don’t get out much – I guess that’s not the real world either. If you work off-shifts and sleep when other people are up, or spend most of your day at a computer screen, how real is that? If you trade commodities but never see any actual oil or wheat, then you are clearly not connected to the “real” world. Ministers, retirees, entertainers and athletes, wealthy people, those on wlefare – pretty much everyone, I guess.
The guys at Home Depot – I think they may be real
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)