An Antidote to Uncivil Discourse

January 22, 2011

What power do you have to prevent gridlocked partisanship?

• Raise your hand if you have called others jerks, Neanderthals, stupid, idiots, bastards, morons, or anything else we tell our children they shouldn’t call another child on the playground.

• Raise your hand if the people to whom you address these words change their minds and thank you for pointing out the error of their ways.

• Raise your hand if you expect civility from those with contrary opinions, but tolerate extreme statements by those with whom you agree.

• Raise your hand if you think the reason there is corrosive and shrill partisanship in government and on the airways is because we, the people who elect those who represent us, don’t demand more civility.

• Raise your hand if you are willing to do something about it.

As long as we insist that our spouse, child, neighbor, brother, boss, co-worker, parent, aunt, uncle, etc. is the one who isn’t willing to compromise and won’t listen to reason — all the while shutting our minds to what he or she is really saying — we won’t find common ground.

And if we don’t open our minds to allow a new idea to slip under the ones we are sure are true, how can we expect our politicians to listen to the other side, let alone compromise in order to resolve the complex problems of a crowded world?

Can we change this atmosphere? Yep. Is this difficult to do? You betcha!

I know it is hard because I have strong opinions, always based on what I assume are solid facts, of course and I have to be really convinced another idea is superior. However, I try to “walk the walk” that I suggest others take and so will periodically read blogs by people with whom I don’t often agree.

Guess what? Sometimes I change my mind.

This happened recently on the Worldwide LWL (Life Without Limits) blog by Barry and Heather Goss in a post called The Big (Poor Me) Gamble. I skim their blog from time to time and find it is too conservative for my tastes. However, I was curious about what he had to say about Lesley Stahl’s segment on “Sixty Minutes” a few weeks back, about gambling machines. Apparently they now create slot machines that “program” players to want to play more by designing them to give constant positive feedback; even though the odds are no better then they were before they “improved” the interface.

Since the odds are always in favor of the house, I’ve always said that people who gamble are mathematically challenged. That’s why I don’t gamble, though I’m hardly a math whiz. But I go to Las Vegas about once a year to visit a friend and we’ll walk through the casinos and watch people sitting before noisy, flashing machines. Dropping in coins. Inserting debit cards. Most of them don’t look  like they’re really enjoying themselves, but who am I to judge?

Should states outlaw machines that entice people to gamble more than they would otherwise? That seemed to be the undertone of the the 60 Minutes segment. Without thinking much about it, I might agree that such a rule could help to keep people with addictive personalities from losing their jobs, homes, possessions, and families.

The betting genie, of course, is not going back in the bottle. Every state except Hawaii and Utah allow some form of legal gambling and states now encourage gambling to help fill coffers in times of tight budgets. I don’t know if it is true that many (some say most) people who gamble can’t afford it,  but 85% of Americans have gambled in their lifetimes and 60% gambled at least once in the last year. Out of that number, 1% are pathological gamblers and another 2 to 3% are problem gamblers.

As I watched the show, I thought about alcoholics and alcohol abusers (a much higher percentage) and no one is talking about bringing back prohibition. But I didn’t particularly question the tone of the interview.

Then when I read Barry’s post, I realized that the agenda of the segment avoided the question of a gambler’s responsibility. When Lesley talked with two women addicted to slot machines, she didn’t ask them to acknowledge the role they played in their current plight. After all, no one sat them down on a stool and told them to keep dropping in coins.

Barry makes a big point of individual responsibility and I agree that if we took away all activities that might possibly be harmful to someone somewhere, we would have little left.

Of course, if people did what I thought they should do, they wouldn’t gamble unless that had money to throw away, and they wouldn’t buy houses they couldn’t afford, and they wouldn’t take advantage of people who tried to buy houses they couldn’t afford, and they would speak to others with kindness, and most of all, they would treat everyone with compassion, even those with whom they strongly disagree.

After reading the blog, I realized I may agree with Barry more than I earlier thought. There are still some things he says that are critical of others in ways I wish he wouldn’t be.  Nevertheless, I will read him again to see whether he says something else that can change my mind.

It would be nice, of course, if something I wrote in my blog caused him to change his mind. (I doubt he even reads this.) But before I can encourage someone to listen to me, if I want us to find common ground, I must listen to him or her with the same intention.

In the end, this business of reaching across the aisle, or across the fence, or across a strained relationship begins with a commitment to follow the Golden Rule — doing to others what we want them to do to us and refraining from doing to others what we don’t want them to do to us. In other words, listening to them as we would like them to listen to us.

That thought leaves me with two more things I’d like you to consider.

• Raise your hand if you think your senator or congressperson follows the Golden Rule.

• Raise your hand if you live by the Golden Rule.

What Narrative Do You Believe?

April 28, 2010

What is the narrative or belief that supports your opinions and actions?

A segment on 60 Minutes this past Sunday was called “Jihadists and ‘The Narrative.’ ” It told the story of a Britain named Maajid Nawaz, who was a non-practicing Muslim when, at the age of 13, he became a “genuine, committed ideologue,” convinced of the truth of what he calls “the narrative” — the belief that America hates Muslims and wants to destroy them.

After recruiting many people to the cause, he eventually went to Egypt, was arrested and put in jail with jihadists who had been there for twenty or more years and had gone through a process where they had abandoned their jihadist views. At first he thought it was his job to re-convince them that the narrative was right. But through the discussion process he began doubting the strength of his own convictions.

He could see that “today’s radical ideology is closer to fascism than true Islam.” After four years in prison, he returned to England and now rebuts the “very narrative he once passionately promoted.” In fact, he believes that “countering the narrative is the core of the solution, making this narrative as unfashionable as Communism has become today.”

It was refreshing to watch him discuss these ideas with other Muslims and to notice that he could actually make progress with some of them, though his goal of countering the narrative will be slow and will take a long time. Toward that end he co-founded the Quilliam Foundation, a think tank that is mostly funded by the British government. The idea is to influence the two million British citizens who are Muslim, especially the roughly 2,000 of them who the government says are Islamic radicals who pose a threat to national security.

As I watched the show, I was glad to see someone counter a myth that has caused the deaths of thousands, and will probably cause many more deaths before the number of Muslims who believe in it are fewer. Yet I wonder who many viewers were ready to challenge their own most cherished assumptions.

We all believe in a narrative that helps explains our world view, our philosophy of life, and most of all, our religion or spirituality.

The problem comes when we accept our narrative as true without question, which is at the core of political positions we hold. For example, one narrative claims that illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants — or whatever you call the people who have become the center of intense controversy in Arizona and the rest of the United States — cost more than they provide to the economy. Another narrative claims the opposite.

Both positions cannot be exclusively true at the same. However, truth can be found somewhere between the opinions on the left and on the right. To reach that point requires persons holding both positions to examine their narratives more closely. To examine the narratives we hold requires courage and an open mind, which is often in short supply in those with the most strongly held positions. To find courage requires us to recognize the danger of continuing on a path of conflict that is likely to end in even worse problems than we have now.

When we have found our courage, we can stop denigrating the narratives of others (even when we are convinced the suppositions behind those narratives are shaky, after all, they seem accurate to the other guy). Most of all,  courage requires us to acknowledge that possibly, just possibly, there may be flaws in the facts we use to shore up our opinions.

One of the most difficult narratives to dislodge is the narrative that lies behind religious beliefs. Three years ago in the blog I wrote a two-part post called Examining Why You Believe What You Believe. In it I posed questions such as the following:

ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS

• What do I see in nature that causes me to believe in the religion I profess, or to not believe in a religion?
• How do my relationships, ethnicity and sex affect my choice of a religion or spiritual practice, or do they cause me not to believe in a religion at all?
• What effect does my understanding of history and current events have on my religious beliefs?
• If I believe in a “God” (or a spirit or power I call by another name), would I define my God as authoritarian, benevolent, critical, or distant? What is there in my experience that supports my belief?
• What is there about my life that causes me to conclude the creation of the universe occurred as I believe it did?

If you believe that God will punish you if you don’t toe the official line, then you better know the rules. If you aren’t sure that you know the rules, you will tend to believe there is someone else who does and believe that person.

Then, if you are a Muslim, you might agree with the “logic” of Ayatollah Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, a senior Iranian cleric. According to the Times of India, he said that earthquakes are caused by, “Many women who do not dress modestly . . . lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society.”

If you are a fundamentalist Christian who believes Pat Robertson speaks for God, you will more likely to accept his statement that the earthquake in Haiti can be blamed on the “Haitian’s pact with the devil.”

Robertson wasn’t the first Christian who saw moral implications in earthquakes and other “acts of God.” Back in 1750 John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church, placed the blame of earthquakes on mankind, though God was the one who carried out the sentence of retribution for mankind’s sins.

Most of us today scoff at these attempts to explain events over which we have no control, but for centuries, until tectonic plates were discovered, humans tried to explain them with whatever evidence they had. Since part of their experience was a belief in a God who sent whatever came into their lives, refreshing rain or floods, health or disease, quiet tremors or major earthquakes, it was natural that divine forces were blamed, or praised, for whatever happened in their lives

It is easy to see that once you blindly accept the theory behind a narrative or belief, you are more likely to slide down a slippery slope to acceptance of questionable beliefs.

This is not to imply that there is no validity to our narratives. The narrative that says children who are criticized are likely to become critical adults, or the narrative that says spouses who treat one another with kindness are likely to remain married, have good evidence to back up that position.

What evidence do you have for your view of the world and what should be done to make it a better place for everyone, even those who disagree with you?

Risk and Motorcycle Helmets

April 8, 2010

Explore how the personal freedom to ride without a motorcycle helmet may create problems for others.

Yesterday I said that I was at the coughing and hacking stage, but thought I’d live. I hoped. Today I’m better, slightly, and more sure that I’ll live to write another blog.

I’d like to continue the topic of risk I started in the last blog because when I saw my doctor on Tuesday she said that one of her patients,who had taken Zicam Nasal Gel [which was withdrawn from the market] for a cold, not only lost the sense of smell, but taste as well. Not completely unable to taste food, but enough so that she has lost the weight she very much wanted to lose.

Not my kind of diet!

Therefore, I thought again about the matter of who should protect us from risk. Is it the government and regulatory bodies or personal decisions based on complete evidence available? And this made me think about motorcycle and bicycle helmets. It is a topic that has long fascinated me because I believe everyone should wear one — I once fell against a car when riding a bike and my helmet got a dent, but my head didn’t. Yet I wonder to what degree government should control our choices. Should we be allowed to kill ourselves?

Here is my reasoning: On the face of it, it would seem that government can become a nanny state when we are unwilling to protect ourselves. For example, there was the man who sued the manufacturer because there wasn’t a warning on the box in which his power saw was delivered that said “you shouldn’t sit on the end of the branch you intend to cut off as you’re working.” I believe it’s true, but don’t quote me on it. In any case, there are many such examples of law suits by people injured by their own stupidity — and then winning. McDonald’s hot coffee case is a prime example.

As for helmets, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, twenty states require all riders to have one. Twenty-seven restrict helmet requirements to some riders. Three states do not have a helmet law. According to that same organization:

Based on studies of the effects of states’ enactment, repeal, or weakening of universal helmet laws, use approached 100 percent when all motorcyclists were required to wear helmets, compared with about 50 percent when there was no helmet law or a law applying only to some riders.

So apparently requiring helmets does make a difference.

Wondering what are the Libertarian views on this subject, I came across one by the American Journal of Public Health titled “Paternalism & Its Discontents: Motorcycle Helmet Laws, Libertarian Values, and Public Health” by Marian Moser Jones, MPH and Ronald Bayer, PhD.

The history of motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States reflects the extent to which concerns about individual liberties have shaped the public health debate. Despite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that motorcycle helmet laws reduce fatalities and serious injuries, only 20 states currently require all riders to wear helmets. During the past 3 decades, federal government efforts to push states toward enactment of universal helmet laws have faltered, and motorcyclists’ advocacy groups have been successful at repealing state helmet laws. This history raises questions about the possibilities for articulating an ethics of public health that would call upon government to protect citizens from their own choices that result in needless morbidity and suffering.

I don’t want us to become a nanny state that can unintentionally cause people to assume someone else will keep them out of trouble and take care of them when they stumble into difficulties. On the other hand, consider this scenario: A man without insurance and without a helmet is severely injured in a motorcycle accident. We don’t allow him to lie on the ground while passersby take a collection to pay for a ride to a hospital. Rather, the ambulance comes and he is treated, even though the money will come out of my insurance payment, my taxes, and community services if he needs long-term care.

If you are asking me to take care of you, I believe I have a right to ask you to take care of yourself as well as you can.

ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION:

• Should I have to pay for the freedom of other people to feel the wind in their hair?

How Much Risk Should You Assume?

April 6, 2010

Consider the ramifications of rules that outlaw drugs or behavior because a few people are injured by them.

I am almost as miserable as yesterday and the basket next to the computer is filling with Kleenex. But here I am, back again with a goal of writing five blogs a week. If I recover, I may actually decide to do this as my “practice” because I notice I had eleven more subscribers since the day before, so maybe people really like to read this more often than I have been producing it.

However, now I have to find a fairly quick topic so I can get on with answering emails that piled up when I was at the conference in Washington, visiting my granddaughters, and on my back with this cold. All of which brings me to a side topic: the speed at which one answers emails.

Do you ever notice that some people will answer an email almost the instant they get it, as though they have been sitting at their computer waiting with baited breath for your specific message so they can send you a quick reply? Are you a fast responder or slower, like me? Let me know in the comments below.

In the past, when we communicated by snail mail, it was understood that it would take time for your letter to get through all the steps of postal delivery from your house or business to mine, then it would take time for me to carefully consider a response, time to get out a piece of paper and write a reply, find an envelope, take it to the mailbox on the way to work, and let it wind its way through the Postal Service and back to your house or business.

Slower? Yes. But it gave those of us who have a full schedule a cushion in which to consider a request. Now we are expected to blast off an email immediately. I realize that not everyone feels that way in the land of instant communication, but I find myself feeling guilty for not answering emails more quickly even when I have a good excuse. So today, again, I am using my Ironing Basket Approach, which I’ve explained several time in the blog, to clean up my inbox — after I get this blog finished — so I better get on with the main topic of the day.

The topic is easy because this cold is so much worse than anything I’ve had for many long years and I attribute my minor or non-existent colds to a Zicam nose gel. For those of you who don’t know what it is, or was, let me tell you that it was a product with zinc gluconate that you gently squirted into your nostril within the first 24 hours of feeling cold symptoms. It didn’t prevent colds, but it was, according to my doctor and reports I’ve read, the only product that was shown to decrease the severity and duration of colds. Always seemed to work for me.

Then last year, because of reports of some people who lost their sense of smell, either temporarily or permanently, following its use, the FDA put out a warning about it. So the company pulled it off the market. Today I’ve tried to get the complete statistics, without spending too much time, to see exactly what percentage of people were affected relative to the number who used it. I’m making guesses but it gives me some kind of context in which to ask you to consider some questions today.

There are several factors in deciding whether withdrawal from the market was a wise move, which is the crux of risk analysis. For example:

1. If 3,000,000 users benefited from the over-the-counter drug over ten years and 300 were affected (numbers I’m making up but based roughly on several reports), that would mean .1% had a negative reaction.
2. How severe were the problems with lack of smell? If it was a life-long problem, that is a significant negative effect.
3. If it was only a moderate loss of smell and quickly disappeared, the questions is whether it would be worth the prevention of a serious cold.
4. If the 3,000,000 potential cold sufferers (remember, that’s my made-up number of Zicam nasal gel sales over the time it was on the market) didn’t get a worse cold that could have turned into pneumonia, should that be part of the analysis when balanced against the negative loss of smell?

We seldom are given such a cost-benefit analysis when we read about products taken off the market. If there is such analysis, it doesn’t seem to be a prominent part of the analysis. In any case, we are highly critical about the FDA not stepping in to protect us — a job I want them to do thoroughly. On the other hand, it seems to me, we should insist on being told the number of people injured, but also the potential of harm by not using a product. For example, there is a lot of heated discussion about the “dangers” of vaccinations but not enough discussion of what can happen when children are not vaccinated against diseases that can be serious and life-threatening.

In doing a few minutes of research on this topic, I did find out something I will remember in the future. Apparently there are some oral Zicam cold remedy products, such as RapidMelts and Chewables that are not affected by the FDA’s recent warning. Next time I’ll try them.

I really don’t know where I stand on the matter of my Zicam nasal gel. I relied on it for many years. If I thought there was a higher risk, I may be willing to keep suffering like I am today. I know I’ll survive. Eventually. But I think people should be told the risk-benefit analysis and make up their own minds. I’m not sure I would risk losing my sense of smell, but I would like people to be given the chance to buy a product if they are willing to take the risk. I suppose what that means is that we’d have to protect companies against lawsuits when the risks are clearly stated and someone has a negative reaction.

The questions I have posed today are filtered through a foggy brain, so they may not be as clear as I would like, but they can give you an idea for considering the withdrawal of products that sometimes throw the baby out with the bath water — and our tendency to accept alternative products that are hyped far beyond their proven effectiveness.

ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS:

• What is the level of risk I would accept from a product sold over-the-counter in stores and pharmacies if the negative effect was life-threatening? .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%?
• What is the level of risk I would accept from a product sold over-the-counter in stores and pharmacies if the negative effect was not life-threatening but minor? .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%?
• Where would I draw the line if a percentage were likely to die from taking a drug that provided a cure for those it benefited?
• Earthquakes, hurricanes, fires and floods all have the potential to kill and maim; how seriously should we expect our government to protect us from them?
• If my answer to the above question is that government should do everything it can to protect us, how willing am I to pay more taxes so, for example, higher dikes can be built or buildings reinforced to the maximum extent?

To explore other questions and related material see Ask Yourself Questions and Change Your Life and Healing Relationships is an Inside Job.

Save Yourself, and Other Taxpayers, $59.57

April 1, 2010

Discover how you can save $59.57 by sending in the census form.

ENTER A CONTEST AND WIN A PICTURE

—NOT an April Fools Day Trick

ARRRGGUH! This is my second day of my provisional (in case I change my mind) practice of writing every day in the blog. I thought if I wrote more often that I could shorten the time it takes to write something I was willing to have people read.

Unfortunately, when I was putting the finishing touches on today’s blog — after about one hour, which is about twice as long as I would like it to take — when I couldn’t save it (the button for saving was blacked out). I’m sure it was an internal glitch (why should I take the blame?). So I closed it anyway, hoping it would save automatically but failing to copy it first to a blank page on the computer, and discovered my changes weren’t saved. Now I have to go back and do it again. As I said, ARRRGGUH! [or however one spells a scream]

Okay, calm down, Arlene, and begin again. [Don't you just hate it when you've done something creative and it gets lost? All those brilliant, or at least original, ideas are down the drain and you have to restart the creativity process all over again.]

Anyway, I don’t want to change to a topic I can write more quickly, like simply sharing a favorite quotation, because today’s topic won’t wait. In fact, it is particularly timely because it is THE time to save money, taxpayer money, that is. Assuming you’re one of those, and who isn’t, by reading this blog today you may be able to save yourself $59.57. [Or tell others about the blog and you can save even more.]

That’s the figure I got from the NewsHour last evening. I didn’t write down the exact figures, so I may be slightly off, but I’m close enough to confidently tell you that you’re taking money out of your pocket if you don’t send in your census form by today. Well, actually, you get a little longer, but not much.

The director of the 2010 Census, who was interviewed, said that it costs 43 cents for every census form that is mailed in. It costs $60 if a census worker has to come to your house and find you.

Most of all, it’s important to know that participating in the census is not optional. It’s a federal requirement. So if you don’t send in the form, the Census Bureau will likely send someone to knock on your day to get the information. In fact, you could face a $5,000 fine if you don’t complete the form! Talk about an incentive for participating in a once-a-decade program! [I believe Canada has a census every five years.]

According to the Detroit News, “Gov. Jennifer Granholm walked from the State Capitol lawn to the Lansing City Hall this morning [April 1] to mail in her U.S. Census form, saying it costs Michigan $10,000 for each state resident not counted.” That’s because federal funds are doled out based on population.

Every form not filled out and returned costs the state $1,000. In a decade, that adds up to $10,000 and “with 178,000 Michiganians not counted in 2000, it cost the state nearly $2 billion.” Wherever you live, the same problem can affect your state budget, which likely has a shortfull or has already drastically cut services.

What do you get IF you participate in the census? You will have more money for libraries, education, infrastructure, health care, and other services paid for by YOUR dollars. In other words, if you don’t participate, someone else will get the money that belongs to you.

Ask Yourself These Questions

• How much do I know about the census? Take a quick quiz on Census 2010: Everything You Thought You Knew and Need to Know
• If I filled in the census form, how long did it take me? [They said it would be ten minutes, but it can be done in much shorter time than that.]
• If I filled in the form, did I mail it in?
• If I didn’t fill in the form, am I willing to pay (out of my tax dollars) $59.57 (or more) to have someone come and find me?
• If I think it is important for people to participate in the census, am I willing to encourage others to do so — and in the process save us all money?

As I’m finishing up this blog (as I said, for the second time today), I just now thought of a question that might be fun:

• When the census finishes its counting, what will be the total number of people living in the United States?

I will give the person who comes closest to the final figure a framed photo from my travels. All you have to do is send in your guess before the data is officially announced.