Hoarding

Monday night is dysfunction night on A&E. Merrie and I watch regularly. The show Intervention has become so popular that most everyone who is selected for the show already knows the interventionists from watching them on TV.

There may be people who dismiss it as simply voyeuristic and intrusive. The intrusion part is true to a point (although participants sign up for it). But Intervention is different from most reality TV in that it documents so clearly and persuasively two central aspects of addiction: first, that it is a systemic (family and friends), not an individual problem; second, that it is VERY difficult and painful to deal with. Most of the addicts on the show relapse.

Hoarders is also on Monday night. The show displays this statistic each time it airs: that 3 million Americans are hoarders--they have a compulsive need to acquire and keep things. The show makes it clear that it really is a sickness--in every case, it points to some kind of underlying problem.

I really like Hoarders. I'm planning to get the first two seasons on DVD. Also, there's a Hoarders bobble-head that I'm buying. Their website offers eight different books about hoarding. I've ordered all of them. There's also a model 1-800-GOT-JUNK truck on its way. And this morning I saw a pair of latex gloves autographed by one of the show's psychologists on ebay. I hope no one outbids me.

Vonnegut Wisdom

Quote of the day:
“Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”
--Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network, describing America’s energy policy in today’s New York Times.

Quote of the day no. 2:
“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”
--Kurt Vonnegut

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am guilty. I do this. I admit it.

This is to be distinguished from mea gulpa, which means “I drink my beer too fast.”

“Everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.” This is played out in all kinds of ways.

At our jobs, we try to do just the fun staff--planning, researching, “strategizing”--and farm out the real work to those who work for us. Let the assistant do it. Then the assistant can hire an assistant to do it. Welcome to government work.

If we have to do too much everyday stuff, or if we can’t move up in the organization, we get bored.

At home, we want to continually change things and remodel. When it comes to just taking care of what we have, it’s yawn city.

A fascinating corollary to this is spending weeks and lots of money to fix up a room or a back yard and then only using it a couple hours a month. This boils down to spending more time preparing it and taking care of it than enjoying it.

There may be a direct analogy to the theological cliche “everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.” Then again, maybe they just sound the same.

The more-appropriate theological analogy may be the being/doing comparison in stories such as that of Mary and Martha. Martha couldn’t stop busying herself when Jesus was around, while Mary simply was there.

Something to think about. Or not. Whatever. I’m bored. Time to go mess something up so I can rebuild it.

Barack Obama on Race

Quote of the day:
“Voters of all stripes have warmed to talk of a ‘new kind of politics,’ regardless of which candidate is promising it. But can such a thing ever exist without a new kind of media?”
--John Mercurio at nationaljournal.com

There’s been quite a bit of discussion about Barack Obama’s speech about race.

Y’think?

But get this. The New York Times reports that more people have read the transcript of the speech on its site than any of its reporting about it. And almost two million people have watched it on YouTube.

An awful lot of people just don’t care much about the analysis and punditry. They want the real thing.

It’s just as well, because most of what has been said and written is not insightful but rather reductive. According to virtually all the reports I’ve seen and read, the whole speech comes down to two questions. Did it reverse damage done by Jeremiah Wright’s comments? And, did it change the course of racial discussion in America?

The first question is about passing politics, and is of just a little bit of interest. The second question is general and grandiose and sets expectations impossibly high.

I will put aside my usual annoyance at the stunning lack of courage and thoughtfulness among reporters and talking heads. They continue to endlessly parrot phrases they are fed. Polly wanna cracker.

It took me a moment, but I have put aside my annoyance. Really.

Obama’s speech was important to me because he brought into the open the dirty little secret that all of us have attitudes about race that we talk about only in private. These attitudes are shaped by our generation and by what we learned as we grew up.

What we learned as we grew up was affected by our social class and our environment. A comfortable upper-middle class family with college-educated parents will talk about race (and many other things) differently than a struggling lower-class family with parents who did not complete high school.

Merrie and I have a 92-year-old neighbor who in passing will sometimes make a derogatory reference about race or ethnicity. He grew up in a very different time and culture than we did.

My very sweet grandmother once used the “n” word in the rhyme “Eenie, meenie, minie, mo.” Being seven and having been taught that the word is a no-no, I was shocked. She could tell something was wrong. I still remember the look on her face as she tried to explain.

She was born in the 1890s, a very different time than the 1960s. Which was a very different time from the 2000s.

And in the 2000s, it’s getting to be time for us to come clean with each other about what our attitudes are and where they come from.

That’s what Barack Obama said. He’s right. Kudos to him.

Profile of an Obamamama

Statistic of the day:
Number of terrrorist attacks worldwide:
2001: 1,732
2005: 4,995
2006: 6,659
--Rand Corp. and the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism

In connection with the last two posts, I want to pass along this column by the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Logan Jenkins:

Marriage to an obsessive Obamamama poses a number of challenges to a journalist who aspires to objectivity as if it were a state of grace. Here are just a few of the domestic discords my wife's partisanship presents:

Public signs of affection – For as long as I've practiced this often maligned profession, I've never once applied a political (or any other) bumper sticker on a family car. I'd rather plunge a wooden stake into my breast than plant a stake sign in my front yard. (Not really, but it sure sounds noble.)

A month before Super Tuesday, my wife announced that she was not only decorating her rear bumper with a Barack Obama sticker, she was also placing a big Obama sign in a side window.

“But what if I have to drive your car?” I asked.

“You can take down the sign if you want,” she said. “But don't mess with the sticker.”

Polar mood swings –We survived menopause without too much sweat (at least in the daytime). Raised a child, too. But nothing in our 30-plus years of marriage prepared us for the emotional roller coaster of the past year, culminating in the screaming Matterhorns of the past couple of months.

After the Iowa primary, she was swooning with bliss as Obama gave his victory speech; after New Hampshire, she was in the depths of despond as the jubilant Comeback Kid crowed to supporters.

South Carolina restored her faith in Obama's transcendence while confirming her contempt for trash-talkin' Bill Clinton, the hectoring presence that, in her biased view, rules out Hillary as an admirable feminist role model for young girls.

Then came Super Tuesday, when California surely would deal the knockout blow to the Clintons, whom she has sort of disliked from, well, Day One. Though the results of the national primary were mixed, she was devastated by the Golden State's betrayal, only to be resurrected by the 11-state winning streak, only to be decked again by Ohio and Texas.

Crossed signals: A couple of weeks before the California primary, she drove with a similarly smitten friend to Obama headquarters in downtown San Diego, joining a team of idealistic youngsters in their 20s. She has never even come close to volunteering in any political campaign before. She made hundreds of phone calls to former Edwards supporters. She knocked on doors in sketchy neighborhoods. One night, she had to take an hour off and was looking for a replacement.

“You keep calling the names on the computer screen,” she told me.

I told her no.

“You don't have to give your name,” she said.

That's not the point, I said. I don't work for campaigns.

“Oh, get over it,” she said. “You're working for me.”

Junk TV day and night: Time was, we watched the tube judiciously. But ever since Iowa, it's nonstop CNN, MSNBC or, in a dry spell, C-SPAN. On Sundays, we tape five or six political talk shows, skipping over everything but presidential primary news and commentary. All the pundits – many of whom appear to be too young to even remember the Clinton administration – have become her best friends or her arch enemies.

A couple of restless days before the Texas primary, I woke up about 3 a.m. The TV was on.

“What are you doing?” I asked.

“There may be new polling,” she said.

Unbalanced debate: In truth, there is no debate. If I say something positive about the Clintons, she'll bring up the lying and parsing over Monica Lewinsky and remind me that I had my (nuanced) doubts that the sordid affair was an impeachable offense.

As for Obama, his stumbles don't matter because he has the right face, the right body, the right voice, the right experience, the right intellect, the right wife, the cool style. My wife grew up in Montreal and hasn't loved any politician since Pierre Trudeau. Debate over.

Oh, the horror: Just below a family health problem – thank God we have insurance – her biggest night terror is that the Clinton machine, short on delegates, will hijack the nomination out of sheer will. It's a fatalism all Obamamamas share, I suspect, now more than ever. Another panic point is that Obama will settle for vice president.

“Go negative on her!” my wife counsels via the TV screen.

He can't really do that, I tell her. His princely image will be shattered. She'll play the damsel in distress.

“She'll play that card no matter what he does,” she laments.

After the primaries in Ohio and Texas, I tried to explain that Obama is still very likely to win the delegate race. Still, she was inconsolable.

She had been praying for a final exorcism expelling the Clintonian demons once and for all from the possessed body politic. At last, the spinning heads and projectile talking points would stop.

“I'm just getting warmed up,” Hillary Clinton told her ecstatic followers.

My dejected wife, huddled in a dark blanket, looked like death warmed over.

The bottom line: The next day, she drove to sunny Mexico for a brief respite from the campaign. That night, she telephoned to declare, “I'm going to send money to Obama.”

Oh, God. The last fire wall has been breached. For almost 30 years, I have not contributed a penny to a politician or a political cause. My journalistic ethics and natural parsimony have been in balance. But no more.

Though it's a sensitive subject, I've asked what she'll do if Hillary wins the nomination. That's easy, she said. She'll vote for McCain and, if the Clintons end up driving their U-Haul to the White House, she'll never watch the news again. Either that or move to Italy.

After what we've been through already – and what we stand to endure as this infernal primary plays out – I could live with either of those results.

All the Candidates are Good

Quote of the day:
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
--George Orwell

For the sake of sanity and perspective, I want to just make a quick list of positive attributes of each of the presidential candidates. This is not about issues or politics, but rather my judgment of the two unique qualities of each of them. You may have a very different list.

Barack Obama
Very articulate, eloquent and charismatic.
Delivers a healing message of the vital need for unity.

Hillary Clinton
Very hard worker and detail oriented.
Deeply passionate about improving people’s lives, and that government can be a powerful force for good.

John McCain
Has coauthored and cosponsored with Democrats several important and controversial pieces of legislation.
Is gregarious, open and speaks his mind, especially with the press.

As I say, you may have a very different list. But the point is that each of the three candidates brings something very important and very positive to the presidency.

I agree with and relate to one of them more than the other two, and I sometimes find myself feeling very strongly about it.

But when I step back a bit and really think about the realities of our world right now, I begin to realize that each of them has a good shot at being an effective president.

The Rise of Anonymous Abuse

Quote of the day:
“Do you know what condescending means?”
--Unknown

This is the political season of passion. I admit that I’ve gotten out of hand.

I don’t know exactly why I feel so strongly about my candidate in this presidential election year. But I do.

I was brought down to earth about a week ago when reading comments on the New York Times Caucus blog. Many of them were downright nasty. And that’s putting it nicely.

People were saying all kinds of insulting, rude and angry things about whichever candidate was opposing theirs. Over the years I’ve come across all kinds of flaming on the internet, of course. In this case I guess I was surprised at both the intensity of feeling and that so many participants think it’s perfectly fine to slur and malign the accomplished and ambitious people who have chosen to run for president.

This is one of the downsides of the internet. Because people can remain anonymous, and the person they’re talking about is distant from them, they give themselves permission and license to blast whoever they feel like blasting.

This is going to sound fogey-like, but my mother taught me years ago to never say something in a letter that I wouldn’t say to someone in person. And, if I was going to express my opinion in writing, to have the courage to sign it--that is, to own it. That’s why I sign this blog.

Question: why should anyone pay attention to someone who does not even own their opinions and ideas?

Usually, when folks get worked up in online forums, chat rooms or blog comments, the subject matter is pedestrian or arcane. In the audio world, for example, folks get heated about whether or not using different kinds of connection cables affects the sound of a stereo or home theatre.

But this is on a different level. To me, it goes way too far to unfairly label or grossly insult anyone who might be our president. After all, these are all essentially good and decent people. Call me old-fashioned. And proud of it.

All of this was an in-my-face reminder that, in the presidential campaign, those like me who have gotten deeply involved or invested can use some perspective. More about that tomorrow.

This Time It's Not Different

Quote of the day:
“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.”
--Ecclesiastes 1:9

I want to spend another moment considering Alfred North Whitehead’s quote from yesterday.

To paraphrase a cliche, when you live long enough, you see almost everything. Actually, it goes further than that. If you live long enough, you see many things repeat themselves over and over.

This applies especially to bad decisions resulting from delusional thinking, be it mild, moderate or severe. The delusions are more important than just about anything, and we will not let them go. Thus the same bad decisions, over and over and over again.

We all carry around delusions of some sort, often relating to our self-image. Some get us into trouble, but most are benign, the worst consequence being foisting ridiculous arguments and opinions on the people around us.

Two areas that seem especially susceptible to delusional thinking are money and politics. These can be personal and relate to our daily lives, or they can be part of group-think and relate to larger issues.

Two cliches apply:

“The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over, expecting a different result.”
--Source unknown

“Those who don’t understand history are condemned to repeat it.”
--Benjamin Disraeli

Unfortunately, the cliche we often live by, even passionately swear by is:

“This time it’s different.”

Whatever the case, I gotta tell you, it is almost certain that this time it’s not different. Sorry.

I used to think it was charming to say “there’s nothing new under the sun.” But there is much more to it than charm. Maybe even a profound truth.

Britney Spears

Quote of the day:
“Don’t look forward to the day you stop suffering, because when it comes, you’ll know you’re dead.”
--Tennessee Williams

Now is the time to pay attention to Britney Spears.

She’s been emblematic of our tabloid culture for years, and has been admired by teens, dogged by paparazzi and ridiculed by the respectable press (and by me).

Whatever we think about her talents or how she has lived her life, we now are called to understand. She is sick. I don’t know what her psychiatric diagnosis is, but there now is a clear explanation for her erratic and bizarre behavior over the last year.

It’s heartening that she finally seems to be getting the care and treatment she needs. A judge has put her care in the hands of her father, and has ordered the locks changed on her home.

Evidently Spears had been under the supervision of her manager, who seems to have not had her best interests in mind, and may have exploited her.

She needs help and care, and we all need to keep our voyeuristic noses out of her life. Just like every other person suffering from mental illness, she deserves our compassion and support.

Also, maybe the public revelation of Spears’ problem will make some teens and adults more aware of the reality of mental illness. I hope so.

There are still far too many people who consider depression, psychosis and other conditions as character flaws to be dealt with by personal fortitude.

The Breeze of a New Dawn

Quote of the day:
“We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.”
--New York Times, January 24, Endorsing Hillary Clinton

Aren’t We Pleased moment of the day:
Karl Rove has joined Fox News as a contributor during the election season.

Most of the country will have voted by the time February 5th is over. It looks like we’ll see higher voter participation than we have in many years.

There is passion and excitement and emotional involvement in the process to the extent I’ve never seen. It’s so great to see.

When February 5th is over, there will be several weeks more of primaries, six months to the national conventions and nine months to the general election.

On the one hand, this might be a considerable test of the staying power of newly-stirred voter passion. On the other hand, this might be time enough for excitement and involvement to grow and spread.

I’ve realized over the last year that I have become actively uninterested in much of what happens in government on the national level. I’ve become palpably weary, and a bit cynical.

Who is elected president really has a minimal effect on my life--especially when compared with the San Diego official our neighborhood is dealing with to have a new sewer line installed.

Still, there is great symbolic effect. A new president brings with her (or him) the chance to be inspired and, I hope, actually see things get a little better.

Whatever happens, right now there is a rebirth of hope.

A Prediction for 2008

Quote of the day:
“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience.”
--George Bernard Shaw

We will soon turn the corner into 2008. A presidential election year.

I don’t know about you, but I’m already a bit weary of the presidential campaign.

I don’t think I’m risking too much by predicting that this will be the most-negative and nasty presidential campaign in modern history.

This isn’t because the people involved are especially negative or nasty. It is because negative campaigns are so incredibly effective.

They are so effective because we are human. And humans have a much stronger emotional reaction to negative statements than to positive ones.

The intensity of the reaction ensures two things. First, we will remember the negative statement much more readily than anything positive. Second, we will give it emotional credence, even if it turns out to be untrue or grossly exaggerated.

Due to the fact that the act of making an accusation is itself a negative, presidential candidates distance themselves from negative campaigning, especially if the charges are outrageous.

Also, to be really effective, a negative campaign takes a huge amount of money. So negative campaigns are conducted by well-heeled and firewalled surrogates--either individuals or organizations.

The best recent example of this is Richard Scaife’s 2004 Swift Boat smear of John Kerry. This campaign had no traceable connection to the Bush campaign. To say it had no actual connection to Bush’s campaign is, of course, laughable.

The Swift Boat campaign was ludicrous and simply wrong. But it had a strong effect on independent voters.

Those same independent or “swing” voters are in play in 2008. I know the Republican candidate will do the most-effective thing to send them his way. And that is negative campaigning.

I never thought I’d hope for more negative campaigning. But I hope the Democrats give as good as they get.

So it’ll be nasty.

And ultimately have little to do with actual governing.

Household Obedience

Quote of the day:
"We all have strength enough to endure the troubles of others."
--Francois VI, duke de la Rouchefoucauld (1655)

Some of us are much more obedient than others.

Witness: some of us meticulously follow operating instructions. Others skip instructions and just start assembling or using something, figuring it can’t be that hard. Besides, reading instructions takes time. And I don’t have time. I’m busy.

Sometimes skipping instructions turns out ok. Just as often, we have to start over with the instructions next to us.

Some folks carefully measure ingredients and otherwise follow recipes to the letter. Others take pride in putting together some of this, a little of that, and maybe some of that, too.

As always, most of us are somewhere between these extremes. We learn from experience that sometimes instructions leave steps out. I remember how amused my father was years ago when he was reading repair instructions in a service manual. The first step: “remove transmission from car.”

We learn also that things don’t always appear in real life the way they are described or depicted in an instruction book. So, using our experience, we adapt a little. Or a lot.

As for recipes, some adaptation is always required. How many times have you exactly followed a recipe and things didn’t turn out quite right?

Only we know the idiosyncracies of our oven or stove. We know our tastes and we suspect that is way too much or way too little garlic.

Also, recipes are usually written with the first objective of not over-preparing or over-cooking, so they deliberately underestimate preparation and cooking time. I guess the logic is that we can always stir, knead or roast a little more. But we can’t do these things a little less once we’ve done them.

Kind of like life.

Related applicable cliche: “You can’t unring a bell.”

Into the Wild

Quote of the day:
“Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.”
--Bertrand Russell

The movie “Into the Wild” is worth seeing. Sean Penn directed and wrote the screenplay, based on the book by Jon Krakauer

It’s the true story of Christopher McCandless, who graduates from Emory University in 1990 and then heads out on the road, eventually leaving behind all his possessions, money, credits cards and ID.

He is seeking freedom but, more than this, he is seeking life. There is a scene in the film in which he quotes a famous writer that the human soul can only live through new experiences.

McCandless interprets this two ways. First, it is necessary for him to not stay in one place or with the same people too long. Second, his relationships with other human beings are not as important as his relationship to unspoiled nature--to wildness.

The interesting thing about his interpretation is that many people share it. They may find this movie disturbing.

Some people live their lives on the basis of seeking new experiences and avoiding doing the same thing twice. This must be the origin of one of my very-least-favorite expressions of all time: “Been there, done that.”

To me, that statement says: “Nothing I have done or seen is worth doing or seeing again.” And its corollary: “No one I’ve ever met is worth meeting again.”

“Into the Wild” works on many levels. It is an excellent though awkwardly structured road film. It is a fascinating portrait of family dynamics and how they influence our worldview.

I especially enjoyed the wide variety of people McCandless meets along the way. These are some very well-drawn character studies, with top-notch acting. Honestly, sometimes I found these people more interesting than McCandless.

The journey this film takes is deep into the reality of living transiently and living outside of human relationships.

And the question that comes up is: Where do we find true meaning in this life?

Sharing

Quote of the day:
“When wealth and the wealthy are valued in the city, virtue and good men are less valued. What is valued is practiced, what is not valued is not practiced.”
--Plato

We don’t understand sharing. We think the word belongs either in kindergarten or as a label for a computer process.

Some people loathe the word. Indeed, some hate it so much that if the word is spoken in their presence, they will run you over with their Hummer.

Speaking of kindergarten, Robert Fulghum, in his well-known book, called sharing one of the things about life that we learned in kindergarten.

But, of course, we didn’t learn it. Not really.

The core of the problem is, as I said before, that we have trouble doing it because we don’t understand it. We don’t understand sharing because there are so few opportunities to learn about it in our daily lives.

Sharing is not supported in our culture, except at miscellaneous times of crisis, when the news is overrun with stories of what we see as sharing. I say it that way because so often people mean well and view themselves as generous, but they are just giving away things they don’t want.

Sharing involves sharing things that you value--your stuff and your time. More than this, sharing involves giving yourself, and allowing those with whom you are sharing to also share with you.

It’s a two-way street. It’s integral to the value of sharing.

Question: can we open ourselves to another to allow them to share with us, as well as us sharing with them?

This is, after all, how life gets better.

The Purity Delusion

Quote of the day:
“You’ve got the whole world waiting for your birth.”
--Indigo Girls

The purity delusion is interesting at any time of year. In this season it takes on an especially fervent patina.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “what the hell is he talking about?”

I’m sure you’ve seen or experienced the purity delusion, but you may not have recognized it.

The purity delusion is the conviction that we will somehow be tainted if we come into contact with something impure. This is part of what drives people into the supposedly safe, squeaky-clean suburbs from the supposedly dirty, crime-ridden city.

This delusion happens in politics, as those with strong opinions about an issue avoid contact with those with equally strong opposite opinions.

It happens with “big” business and “big” government. To some, it is the mere fact that an organization is big that makes it grossly “impure” and to be avoided.

I often hear people complain about how the world is being ruined by “big” business as they leave on their bicycles to hunt for their dinner, pick their wild coffee beans or gather cotton or shear sheep for their clothes.

The purity delusion is especially obvious in matters of religion. That’s why we see pointed expressions of it at this time of year.

There are those who think contact with anything religious will somehow taint them. And there are those who think contact with anything non-religious will taint them.

Both groups operate under the purity delusion, which states “I can remain pure, untouched and unaffected by alien influences if I constantly reject all contact with them.”

Why is this a delusion? Simply because such contact can’t be avoided. It happens in the realm of thought, so physical contact with people or things is not necessary.

If you think such contact can be avoided, I suggest you try the age-old experiment of trying to not think of a pink elephant.

Ho-ho-ho.

Why People Behave Funny

Quote of the day:
“Life is difficult.”
--Scott Peck

Quote of the day no. 2:
"This just might be the biggest auction of anything anyone has ever held, with the potential to change the course of history for every player inn the communications-services business."
--Eric J. Savitz in today's "Barron's," referring to the FCC's upcoming auction of broadband spectrum.

If you're like me, during the holidays you are especially concerned about unusual patterns of behavior among co-workers, friends and family.

If you'd like to to find a way to label such behavior, there's an interesting Wikipedia entry called "List of Cognitive Biases." It sounds scientific, but it's actually rather entertaining to see people you know (and maybe yourself) described with such clinical precision. And, as I say, this entertainment might come as a needed relief during the holidays.

Imagine how "irrational escalation," "hyperbolic discounting" and "post-purchase rationalization" come into play during shopping.

Wikipedia itself is a fascinating phenomenon. Earlier I was doing research for an upcoming class and I read the entry on Raymond Brown, who was a Catholic priest and renowned biblical scholar. He wrote a definitive and exhaustive book on the birth stories in Matthew and Luke.

His Wikipedia entry (in which he did not participate, because he died in 1998) does not talk about his work as much as it describes the Catholic doctrine he may or may not have violated by publishing this and other books.

Like many Wikipedia entries, people writing and contributing to it have their own strong agenda. See "Confirmation Bias" in the "List of Cognitive Biases."