Flashback – The Blame Game

Many Americans stumble through life following rules of thumb they heard somewhere while making no attempt to verify their effectiveness: drink 8 glasses of water a day; avoid eating fat; wolf down Vitamin C for a cold; shun fast food, etc. They take the same attitude toward so many myths: fear GMOs and food additives; fear nuclear power; fear fluoridation of drinking water; fear vaccines; worry about (extremely rare) school shootings and child abduction and more. When anything goes wrong they look for someone else to blame and to the government to fix it. Many legislators understand and relish their role as savior, which allows this lack of responsibility to continue.

 

Here from almost 7 years ago are my comments on this tendency to blame and depend on others to help.

[I just finished reading a book called Scapegoat:  A History of Blaming Other People. In it the author tells how, back as far as the Garden of Eden, we have been finding others to blame for our problems and shortcomings. We have blamed foreigners, other religions, the rich, the poor, bankers, God, Satan, witches, priests, kings and animals, even the weather. I think he left out all the “Bigs”: big business, big pharma, big tobacco, big oil, big government, big banks and the rest. No one takes responsibility and it began with Adam blaming "the woman" and Eve blaming the serpent.

This was coincident with two news articles: one about a common whipping boy, MacDonald’s, and the other about our lack of faith in the government.

The first is in the form of a video.  A high school science teacher from Iowa challenged his students to develop a diet for him based purely on the menu from McDonald’s. They were instructed to vary his meals and keep the total intake of calories and fats to within set guidelines. After eating three meals everyday from MacDonald’s and beginning an exercise program where he walked for 45 minutes a day, he lost 37 pounds and his cholesterol dropped from 249 to 170. This flies in the face of popular opinion and documentaries like “Super-size Me” that try to shift the blame from individual behavior to the fast food industry. As the teacher says, “It’s our choices that make us fat, not MacDonald’s.” Behavior has consequences.

The second related piece of news is the results of a recent poll showing that about 70% of Americans have little faith in government. “The percentage of Americans saying the nation is heading in the right direction hasn't topped 50 in about a decade.” Many are looking for fundamental changes in the structure of government, as “61 percent are pessimistic about the system of government overall and the way leaders are chosen.” The underlying premise here goes against the idea of responsibility as we look to the government to solve our problems and worry about their inability to do so, instead of being more self-reliant.

Perhaps it’s time to stop looking for someone else to blame, whether it be the government, fast food, or any of the other popular targets. It’s time to start solving our problems with better choices all the time.]

Manifesting, Really?

About 40 years ago a consultant descended on the company where I was working to meet with all employees (who later magically became associates) to introduce them to the power of what he called “visioning.” According to him, visioning was the key to achieving your goals in life and at work. He had convinced the executive team that harnessing such power would thrust the company forward.

 

Participants need only form a strong vision in their minds and things would turn out favorably. If it didn’t work you weren’t doing it right. As would be expected, employees dutifully attended training, and then returned to their desks to do their jobs in the usual way. Like most business fads, it quickly faded. The only benefit was that someone caught daydreaming could plead visioning as a defense.

 

Until recently, I assumed that fad had died – but no! It merely got rebranded and now is being sold to individuals as manifesting.

 

I found the details on this site from August 2019, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Manifesting.” 

 

“Manifesting is cultivating the experience of what it is that you want to feel — and then living and believing in that experience so that you can allow it to come into form.” It can be used to “attract whatever you want, whether that’s a successful business, good health, a relationship or even a material object.” There’s no limit to the power of manifesting as long as you align with the loving energy of the universe. (It sounds a lot like praying that Notre Dame will win the football game.) 

 

It is further defined as “the process of vibrating at a high frequency so that you become a vibrational match with the Universe and can co-create your world.”

 

According to the site’s own survey, a vast majority are confused about how to do it right. (Maybe they’re wondering why it’s taking so long for their dreams to come true when they are concentrating/vibrating so hard.) 

 

But then come the disclaimers. Practitioners err in thinking that exactly what they want should magically appear. It doesn’t work that way because the Universe is wiser and may have different plans. You may sometimes get what you want, but you don’t have total control.

 

Even though it may initially sound loony and airy-fairy, there are some positive messages. The video on the site emphasizes focusing more on what you have that’s working, being grateful, instead of stressing about what you don’t have or how long it is taking. This is a good message, which I call perspective and have written about here about 150 times.

 

That’s followed by more good advice about not trying to force or control everything. Don’t sweat the small stuff, be aware of your financial situation and be in control your feelings.

 

When I first read all this alignment with the vibrations of the Universe stuff, it seemed laughable. But deeper down it looks more like a religion for the non-religious: “We can trust that an energy beyond our own is working on our behalf and that everything is working out for us — even if we don’t know exactly when or how it will happen.” Readers were advised to be patient and practice manifesting not just on special occasions but every day, the same advice you would hear about prayer in any church, temple or mosque. 

 

The problem is that some people are selling this as a standalone, magic solution to all life’s problems, while the part about taking responsibility is easily overlooked. You can’t just sit down and wish things into existence. The Lord does help those who help themselves.

Flashback – Does Luck Have a Half-life?

This takes us back almost seven years to the minimum wage protests at fast food restaurants. The question is whether people learn to change behavior when they are bailed out from predictable consequences. I have long argued that the reason you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage is that no one should start a family if they can only get a minimum wage job. Bad luck is not forever.

 

People who caught a bad break certainly should be helped, but behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Irresponsibility rewarded breeds more. Over the past seven years a lot of irresponsibility has been rewarded. Here are my 2013 comments:

[More protests are breaking out around the plight of fast food workers unable to survive on the minimum wage. They are demanding a wage increase to $15 an hour. The news has presented the arguments pro and con, but have usually given more time to the protesters, sometimes, as in this CBS piece, picking out one as a kind of “poster child” for the cause. The hidden problem is that minimum wage, unemployment extensions, food stamps and other proposed government solutions ignore behavioral factors.

A primary argument in favor of this issue tells us that all these people are less fortunate, that they need a helping hand to get back on their feet, that "there, but for the grace of God,” go we. They completely ignore well-known wisdom that behavior has consequences. We are presented with the argument that every one of these fast food workers is merely down on his luck or a victim of a bad economy, and that the situation has nothing to do with consequences of behavior. This unbelievable scenario is widely accepted by otherwise rational people. The media and many politicians never challenge it.

This leads to an interesting comparison: In other circumstances, how do caring people really act? If your teenage son sits on the sofa all day playing videogames, ignoring homework and refusing to do his chores, do good parents excuse the behavior and cover for him? Do they pass it off with, “That’s OK; he’s going through a tough time”? Even non-parents know the answer. Good parents will institute consequences for this poor behavior, knowing that if they don’t, life and reality will later institute much harsher consequences. Teenage sons can be very difficult, but good parents anticipate with a pattern of similar, consistent reactions to deal with natural childhood resistance and laxness. That’s how caring people act. They don’t always come to the rescue – behavior that makes the rescuer feel powerful, but often causes long-term harm to the one rescued. When the bad situation is a bad break, sympathy and a leg up are appropriate. If the son is mugged and loses money, parents may reimburse him for the loss. If he loses it gambling, that’s the consequence of bad behavior. Bailing him out is inappropriate, dulls the impact of the consequence and no learning occurs. (For an extreme example see the recent case of "affluenza" in Texas.)

Returning to the case of minimum wage employees, especially those presented by the media and never challenged, we must ask if it was bad luck or consequences that contributed to the situation. If it’s luck, then some temporary help is appropriate, because bad luck does have a kind of half-life or statute of limitations. A little help can turn things around, but caring people do not bail out from consequences. That only fosters more problematic behavior.

Even in these seemingly innocent human-interest stories the determination requires only a few simple questions. Where did those two or three children come from? Where is the father (or fathers)? What contribution is he making? If none, why not? Did the workers finish high school; were drugs ever involved; are they applying for better jobs, are they looking for ways to increase skills, etc., etc.? What is the long-term plan, if any? (CBS later reported that their "poster-child" example turned down promotions more than once because it didn’t fit her preferred personal schedule. Another news story told of a kind social worker repairing at minimum cost the car of a woman who hasn't been able to work in 5 years due to a neck injury. She can't work, but she can drive?!)  

Looking at the situation through the behavioral lens would probably determine that many of these people are not victims. Many are living with the consequences of earlier choices. Should caring people run to bail them out, labeling them all as “less fortunate,” as the compassionistas would have us believe? Not only do they not learn and grow, but the next generation, poised to make the same mistakes, sees no example to discourage them from following the same path. So, the current, non-behavioral approaches, which lump them all into the same category, lead not to solutions but to perpetual problems.]

National Debt – What, Me Worry?

If you care about the country going bankrupt, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. Both parties seem to be indifferent to it. There's only a small difference in the size of their trillion-dollar spending bills.

 

Below are two graphs. The first shows, from the best source I could find, the spending and revenue of the United States over the last 30 years. We actually had a small surplus in the last two years of the Clinton Administration. Then things went south. Bush started a couple of unnecessary wars and added Medicare Part D. Obama continued those wars, failed to take ISIS seriously and threw in some stimulus. Trump wanted to build up the military, already the largest in the world, but the democrats would only agree if they got a proportional boost to their favorite domestic programs. The lines clearly show what happened. 

 

 

Just as a thought experiment, suppose the rate of increase of federal government spending had remained the same as it was from 1990 to 2000 under Bush (R) and Clinton (D) – not the same level of spending, but the same rate of increase. Here is what that would have looked like. 

 

Even with the two tax cuts that politicians told us would cause huge problems; many of those years would have run a surplus fed by growth in the economy over the past 8 years or so. 

 

Now this exact scenario would likely not have been possible due to the increased Social Security outlays as the Baby Boomers hit retirement age. But still, if you ask people over the age of 45 how life was during the 1990s, how well needs were being met; the majority would say that things were fine. 

 

The question is: how much of that extra spending went to real improvement, how much was pure waste, and how much went to buying your vote (using your own money to do it)?

 

We hope for responsible leaders; but when it comes to spending, politicians take the attitude of Alfred E. Newman, the fictitious mascot of Mad Magazine.

Flashback – Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Back in 2011 I explained how new legislation regarding credit cards led to the companies increasing fees and interest rates. More recently, about a year ago, I once again emphasized how well intentioned consumer protection laws often have unintended consequences. Here is that entry from August 23 of last year.

[Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, often because they don't. In the end everyone loses some freedom because of the bad decisions of a few. It takes critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as promotional items. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those from a dentist’s office or a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans."[Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges and lawmakers deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should worry about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list only because they are not chemicals. The situation is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all gets passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label? I’m sure many people thought this was a great idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may be creating a monster.]

Flashback – Twenty-Three Months to Solve the Problem

Time’s running out! In early-December 2018 shortly after the last election, with the usual accusations of voter suppression by requiring a photo ID, I suggested that with 23 months to the election, concerned citizens had plenty of time to solve the problem themselves. Here is the original post.

[Generally, I avoid topics that touch even indirectly on politics, but this subject has overtones of responsibility – doing something about a situation instead of trying to blame it on luck, circumstances or another person or group.

I get so tired of hearing about the supposed voter suppression because citizens have trouble identifying themselves at the polls. Now we are 23 months away from the next major election, and it’s time to do something about it instead of moaning or accusing after the fact, as has been the practice for many years. There is a better solution than fighting about whether or not the laws must be changed.

Spread the word. If anyone you know cannot for any reason obtain a photo identification, figure out what is necessary, take some time away from work or other interests and help them out. It probably only takes a couple of hours, depending on the efficiency of the local DMV. 

Another faster, but slightly more expensive option would be to help the person get a passport. Last time I renewed mine, I found a local pharmacy that takes passport pictures, and I spent less than an hour to drive there and leave with my photo. The rest can be done through the mail. (Some UPS locations also have this service.)

Every nursing home I’m familiar with runs a shuttle for these kinds of errands. People confined to their own homes must have someone to check on them periodically. Perhaps the same organizations that arrange for voters without transportation to get to the polls on Election Day could set up one or two ID days for those unable to make their own arrangements. With 700 days left to find a few hours to solve this problem for everyone we know, next time there should be no excuse!

As with so many other problems, we look to the government to fix it when a simple solution is within our reach.]

Now (August 2020) with only 2 months left, I wonder if anyone took the initiative, or will we hear the same cries and complaints from the people who want new laws when all that was ever needed is a little foresight and personal responsibility.

Flashback – Hydration and Littering

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about how the incessant advice about hydration was mostly bogus, promoted by the bottled water industry and misinformed social media users. This week I ran across this Guardian article, “The truth about hydration” that reinforces everything I wrote back then. In the middle of a hot summer with TV meteorologists parroting the same reminders, it’s a good time to review.

[“The federal government announced Wednesday it will eliminate a policy that allowed national parks like the Grand Canyon to ban the sale of bottled water in an effort to curb litter.”  Fox News explains that the rules were set up in 2011 because empty bottles scattered throughout some of the parks had become a major problem.  One problem was the emphasis on bottled water.  They did not ban the sale of other beverages, such as sugary soft drinks that are typically made of sturdier plastic.  The policy was obviously not completely thought through in the first place, setting them up as an easy target for objections.

Those objections did come and the National Park Service officials changed their minds.  But instead of just admitting they were wrong or banning the rest of the soft drinks, they said they wanted to "expand hydration options for recreationalists, hikers, and other visitors to national parks."  Falling back on the idea of hydration they tried to make it sound like a health-related decision.  There are a couple of questionable aspects to this.

Later in the article is one sentence that probably gets more toward the truth:  “ The bottled water and beverage industry have previously lobbied aggressively to keep bottled water at U.S. national parks.”  As in most cases, follow the money.

But what is all this about hydration?  This is one of those urban myths that people just won’t drop.  I even heard someone talking about pre-hydration the other day, comparing drinking lots of water (or sports drink) to applying sunscreen before you go out.

More and more experts are coming forward with contrary, more balanced advice.  Here is an example.  “Drink when you're thirsty. Stop drinking when your thirst is quenched. Obey that one rule and there is no risk of dehydration,” says Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a University of Pennsylvania kidney specialist.

Later on in that hydration article is a statement that shouldn’t surprise anyone: “Much research on human hydration [is] funded in part by bottled water industry.”

  

Another study found “no connection between hydration and the performance of athletes.”  It reiterates the sound, moderate advice to drink when thirsty.  There is no need to go overboard or walk through life tethered to a water bottle.

The final point is about bottled water itself.  I have elaborated on this subject in the past.  With a few rare exceptions or in emergency situations, bottled water is typically no purer than tap water and sells at a hundred times the price.  From time to time the bottled water companies are taken to task by some government agency for questionable practices or claims.  Some merely use tap water from another location.  Most recently a lawsuit cites Poland Spring Water for deceiving customers by “bottling common groundwater that doesn’t meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's definition of spring water.” 

Lately I’ve noticed in some airports an absence of the usual drinking fountains outside restrooms.  The only option is to buy the bottles from the vendors.  Again, follow the money.

Yes, it is important to have water with you when hiking in a national park (or anywhere).  It is smart (critical thinking) to buy a water bottle or canteen for the occasion and fill it at the tap or refill it at a drinking fountain. It is responsible not to throw bottles or any kind of litter around the trails or campgrounds. It shows perspective to understand that it’s unnecessary to pre-hydrate or take other extraordinary actions.  Drink when you are thirsty; it’s as simple as that.  So many of these problems can be easily solved by right behavior rather than by government regulations.]

Both Sides of Tax Responsibility

Have you heard that radio ad about the tax relief company starring Louie? A man identifying himself as Louie says that he did not pay his taxes for eight years and now he is in trouble with the IRS. No kidding?

Think of all the people who sweat over their taxes every year for fear of being audited. Actually, few people sweat over their own taxes. Less than half file them themselves, and three-quarters of those self-filers use purchased software. Nonetheless, very few are casual enough (or careless enough) to let it go for eight years. 

To be in this situation is slightly understandable for a small business operating on the edge of solvency with inexperienced entrepreneurs trying to keep up on all the paperwork, but Louie sounds like an ordinary individual who is now terrified that the IRS is coming to confiscate his house, his bank accounts and his car.

It’s a little hard to feel sorry for the guy. Everyone else is trying to be conscientious about the annual chore, motivated either by fear or responsibility. Do people like Louie just assume that the rest of us will take up the slack for him and his fellow scofflaws? 

Regardless of the circumstances, in rides that tax relief firm to the rescue. They will negotiate with the IRS and help reduce what he owes based on their experience and understanding of the various hardship and forgiveness programs. So the people that let it ride, if they qualify, pay the firm a fee and pay the government less than what they would ordinarily owe. What a sweet deal! And all the people harping on the issue of not paying “your fair share” are silent about these sorts of arrangements.

These firms, not just one or two of them but over 100 listed on this review website, are proudly advertising ways to not pay a fair share. And it ‘s not some philosophical fair share. It’s a reduction to “pennies on the dollar” from the actual calculation after taking all the legal deductions and exemptions. Where is the outrage?

On the other hand, part of their message if you find yourself in this situation is, “Don’t go it alone.” Don’t try to take on the IRS without an expert. On that point they are right. The government has unlimited resources. They can use both force of law and delays of the legal system and bureaucracy to take your possessions and bleed you dry on appeal.

IRS tactics can be similar to another program called civil asset forfeiture. (This information comes from a news article from Alabama where they tried unsuccessfully to change the law.) “Under civil forfeiture, the government may take someone’s property as soon as they are accused of a crime, without that person having been convicted or, in some cases, even charged.” Suspected criminals can lose cash and physical assets without due process. “Even when charges are dropped or the accused is found not guilty, those accused often find it difficult to get their property back. Some never do.”

So whereas I can look at Louie and people like him and despair over their lack of responsibility – there must be a healthy number of them to keep 114 tax relief companies on the list in business – I can also see the necessity of such businesses to protect citizens from a likely abuse of their rights anytime they are even accused. If everyone in America was conscientious about filing honestly and on time, it would remove the need for these firms to exist, but it wouldn’t eliminate the threat from a heavy-handed government agency in this and other areas.

Life Is Tough.

From ABC news: “Two men who believe they were switched at birth nearly 80 years ago are suing a Roman Catholic diocese in West Virginia, alleging negligence and breach of duty by the hospital where they were born.”

One of the men discovered through a DNA test that he was not related to people he thought were his family. He learned the identity of the other man and found his “real” family by searching hospital records from 1942. Together the two are suing. They claim to have “suffered a ‘lifetime of consequences’ from the switch and are seeking unspecified damages.” 

One of the men has blue eyes and says he “looks different from the family that raised him and always felt out of place.”

This falls into the category of news that is hard to distinguish from satire. Have these people really suffered over the past 78 years because they were not blood relatives of the people who raised them? Would there have been any distress had he not uncovered the facts? Does not looking like the rest of your family lead to psychological damage? Finally, what do these claims say about adopted children?

According to Wikipedia, a parent is “a caregiver of the offspring in their own species. The most common types of parents are mothers, fathers, stepparents, and grandparents.” Including stepparents extends family relationships to beyond blood relatives and to people the children may not look like.

Furthermore, since both sets of parents were ignorant of the error, there would have been no reason for them to treat the “switched” sons any differently. It’s hard to imagine what damage was done.

An adoption website points out that there are “hundreds of thousands of adoptive families in the world who all represent wonderful families….” Chances are most of these children don’t look like their parents or siblings either, but they are members of the family. 

From another source: “Adoptive families can be transracial, international, or have members of the same family from different parts of the country.  Adoptive families look different. Adoptive families are beautiful!  They are a picture of what happens when one part of the human race decides to care for another human being.” 

To most of us, family means more than a blood relationship, but rather a source of love and support.

But these concepts are not good enough for the two and their lawyers. Like many Americans they believe life is tough, and those who suffer from the most trivial problems or minor irritations deserve sympathy and compensation whenever possible. Look at the emotional support animal industry (not to be confused with service animals).

Yes, it is an industry. There are websites that offer, for a fee, certificates and vests to meet an "epidemic" demand for support animals. Technically only mental health professionals can provide documentation.  Some sites skirt the issue by employing counselors to do a quick interview or review a questionnaire. Still the person not the animal’s behavior is evaluated, and counselors would not be qualified to do so. That places thousands of untrained, unpredictable animals in public with presumed special privileges, although the certification only allows the pet on an airplane or in housing that forbids animals. It is not blanket permission to take the animal anywhere.

The government accommodates these people with special laws without scientific evidence. Wikipedia reveals, “Researchers have not established that untrained emotional support animals provide any significant benefit to people with mental or emotional disabilities…the scientific research is limited and of low scientific quality.” 

See the parallel? This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. It’s a reflection of the times. These two elderly gentlemen claim to have suffered consequences all their lives. No one dares ask why they failed to take charge at some point over 60 years of their adult lives. We have no expectations of responsibility from victims. They suffer a wrong and seek (monetary) relief 78 years later. Like the growing number that require emotional support animals, they are comforted rather than confronted. And life goes on.

People act like victims. They need and expect to get their settlements, their furry crutches or whatever without question. Anyone critical is branded as unfeeling.

Two hundred years ago they’d all be dead. At one time life was tough, and you had to be tougher just to survive. Today life is significantly (significantly!) easier, but it’s also easier to play the victim and complain rather than to be responsible in taking on life’s challenges. Doing so is hard and might even lead to personal growth and maturity, but don't expect the government or society to take that view!

Flashback – Blame the Sugar

[In February of 2012 I provided another example of how Americans are encouraged by the media to shift the blame rather than take responsibility. Each time we do, we give politicians and regulators a new target for bans and restrictions. This in turn relieves us of the responsibility of making choices along with the risks that some of those choices might turn out to be wrong, but it also deprives otherwise responsible people from making any choices at all. At the time I wondered if sugar would be next on the list.]

In past blogs I have warned that if we don't begin to change our behavior, especially by acting responsibly, bad consequences will continue. This lax attitude can force the government to step in, threatening our freedom. The idea of a threat to freedom may seem like an abstract concept, perhaps a little difficult to pin down. Now we have another concrete example.

Published Wednesday in Nature, a study by three scientists from UC San Francisco finds that sugar is as bad for us as alcohol and tobacco and should be likewise regulated.  This article from the LA Times gives the details. The study's authors make recommendations to the Federal Government including: taxation, distribution controls, age limits, and a limit or ban on television commercials for processed foods containing any form of added sugar. This is what I mean by loss of freedom.   Besides the alcohol and tobacco restrictions, there have been local bans on transfats. Today it's sugar. What next?

This article is interesting because I find the wording, "sugar...is responsible" near the beginning and "sugar itself is to blame" further on. It's the sugar's fault and we are the victims! How long are we going to let inanimate objects take the rap for us? If we don't step up and take responsibility for our behavioral failures and begin to make some changes, well-intentioned people will call for government action and our freedoms will slowly erode. Meanwhile, we will be standing around wondering how it happened!

Memorial Day

On the last Monday in May we celebrate Memorial Day. It’s traditionally considered the beginning of summer, a long weekend marked by cookouts, parades and political speeches – although probably less so this year.

Like most holidays, the meaning behind the celebration has been watered down considerably. The Old Farmers Almanac puts it well: “We spend time remembering those who lost their lives and could not come home, reflecting on their service and why we have the luxury and freedom that we enjoy today.” Most if not all those political speeches will also call on spectators to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms.

Yes, there will be much mention of freedom, but I have written many times in the past about the inexorable link between freedom and responsibility, most recently in a Flashback entry about two months ago.

Freedom is something that can be so easily frittered away. When children act irresponsibly, good parents impose restrictions, time outs or groundings. Others, though, may dismiss it as a phase they are going through. As their behavior leads to bigger problems, parents find themselves in a position of constantly having to bail their children out of trouble, because they have never learned responsibility. 

When they become adults, the government or advocates take over, often in the form of new regulations and restrictions. The problem is that, in order to keep the irresponsible from hurting themselves or others, those new regulations apply to everyone. To keep some citizens from making bad decisions, our elected leaders take away our ability to decide for ourselves. 

Because of a few irresponsible people, police have the legal right to set up sobriety checkpoints on highways waylaying everyone, without permission or a warrant.

Because of a few irresponsible people, encouraged by members of the legal profession who profit from it, try to shift the blame for their poor choices, every purchase requires warnings that add to the cost. We sign hold-harmless agreements and must carry extra insurance to guard against such reprisals.

How many states and counties have arbitrary laws about sales of liquor, fireworks, sugary soft drinks, and trans fats? If one busybody neighbor gets concerned, you can be arrested for letting your children walk a couple of blocks to the park alone.

This has become only more pronounced during the pandemic. Many governors impose arbitrary restrictions, in some cases enforced by threats of police involvement or other penalties. Even those who choose to make prudent decisions on their own are caught up in the hysteria. Some citizens feel obligated to shout at, threaten or report neighbors.

In one case, a salon owner in Texas “was ordered to spend a week in jail after she continued to operate her business despite restrictions put in place.” She was not free to operate her business, despite having brave employees and customers willing to participate.

Michigan residents were forbidden from buying seeds and garden supplies. It’s springtime! At least one mayor threatened to shut off utilities to maverick businesses. Meanwhile those who have been terrorized by the news media’s black-and-white portrayal of the situation, support the virtual house arrest, cower behind closed doors, fearful of dying themselves and accusing those who want to go back to work of being selfish and callous about the lives of others.

How long will some of the coronavirus restrictions stay in place? Will governors and mayors assume a new sense of marshal law-like powers to be called upon in any future situations that can be defined as emergencies? Will the how-many-deaths-is-it-worth crowd dominate, as we  permanently lose more freedom while politicians continue to vow to “fight for your rights” by passing more regulations?

The last line of the first verse of our National Anthem asked the question, “… does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” Francis Scott Key was asking whether the flag was still there. It is, but a better question would be: how much longer  can it honestly be considered "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? The founders chose liberty over safety, and that is presumably what all those people fought and died for. Today we seem to passively accept the opposite.

Flashback – Responsibility and Excuses

[How things have changed from when I originally titled this “Evidence Abounds” back in 2011. These days news is dominated by coronavirus and politics (or the mixture). What hasn’t changed is the tendency to use excuses in place of responsibility and the media’s willingness to encourage this behavior. First see the flashback comments.]

How hard is it to find evidence of problematic behavior in one or more of the five dimensions or of institutionalized support for these habits? – Surprisingly easy.  There are days when I have to pick and choose among available topics.

Today I have an Associated Press article left over from 3 weeks ago presenting research that tells how hormones make it more difficult to keep weight off after dieting.  The headline begins, “Not your fault!”  This is right out of the poor discipline/poor responsibility playbook.  It gives people the excuse that they can’t stick to their diet because of their hormones.  Ironically the header above the article features six advertising links, five of which are for weight-loss products, programs or surgery – the easy answers that everyone looks for when faced with the hard work of getting back to and staying at the right weight.  This is practically the definition of discipline and responsibility failures that bubble up into many other societal issues and crises (budgeting, smoking, and alcohol abuse, to name a few).

How, in the first place, can any reputable scientist say that hormones are the problem?  Didn’t humans have the same hormones many years ago when the number of overweight Americans was less than half of what it is today?  It just doesn’t add up.

Second, how can the parent of a teenager use hormones as an excuse for regaining weight and not let that teenager use hormones as an excuse for any of their own destructive decisions?  This sounds like a can of worms ready to be opened.

I have sometimes jokingly said that if I ever got arrested for anything, I’d just tell the police that what I was doing was performance art and protected under the First Amendment.  Now, I guess, if that doesn’t fly, I have the excuse of hormones to fall back on.  

[Well, that was then, but in 2020, a NOVA episode was dedicated to blaming obesity mostly on genes using examples of rare cases. It's a little hard to believe that our genes are so much different from Americans living in the 1950s and 60s. Does evolution work that fast, or is it just another handy excuse?]

Flashback – Freedom and Responsibility

[What results from a lack of responsibility is often deceptive. No one gets hurt, and any important job usually gets done. When an individual fails to take care of it, someone else takes up the slack by doing it for them. The so-called helicopter parents fit into this category. But what happens when this behavior occurs on a societal level? – The helicopter government steps in with programs and regulations, and we give up our freedom one step at a time. It's true both for citizens and for corporations.

I reminded everyone of this consequence back in July 2011.]

Some think the opposite of freedom is slavery or perhaps living under a dictatorship, but in our society the opposite of freedom is the benevolent authoritarianism of warnings and legal restrictions resulting from our failures in the dimension of responsibility.

We are told that we are all victims of the economy, of our high-stress jobs, and of our non-stop lifestyles. The word is used in ads everyday, one even asking me if I am the victim of hair loss. We are presumably victims of big oil when gasoline prices rise, of big drug companies, or of big insurance companies when they raise their rates or dispute our claims. 

Especially in legal cases involving civil suits, attorneys first persuade prospective clients that they are victims (you’ve seen the ads on TV) then persuade juries that their clients are victims and someone should pay. In those same TV ads you often hear the word settlement, because the targets of these lawsuits fear that juries will buy into this point of view. It's cheaper to settle out of court, because those juries, from a basic lack of economic understanding, assume that a big corporation or insurance company will pay the cost out of their own pocket and it will never get back to us.

Claiming victimhood is an easy answer. It takes no effort. What went wrong is someone else’s fault; we are not to blame; we share none of the responsibility. It’s a passive stance. I don’t have a high-paying job, not because I didn’t bother to finish high school, but because I am being discriminated against. I got lung cancer not because I refused to quit smoking, but because the tobacco companies tricked me. My kids have too many toys not because I bought them, but because of the cartoons on the TV. The banks fooled me into getting a mortgage I couldn’t afford. When I have a sore knee, I ask the doctor for a pill or for surgery rather than losing some weight. I get to put all my problems in someone else’s hands. Responsible people don’t act like this, but victims do.

When we feel and act this way, we need to be protected. That’s when the warnings and regulations begin. Since these people can’t take care of themselves, we must require warnings on cigarette packages, on ladders, on hairdryers, and on almost every other product, telling them not to use them in ways that may seem stupid to the average person. When we sign up our kids to play sports, we must sign “hold harmless” forms. All the warnings don’t stop the lawsuits, so next come the regulations: all playgrounds must provide soft landings, all car trunks need an escape handle, all lawnmowers must have an automatic shutdown device, etc. Some cities ban the sale of certain foods or of fast food in certain neighborhoods. Victims are treated like children and must be protected from the real world and from themselves.

Where does it all end? The old analogy of boiling a frog applies. Throw a frog into boiling water and he jumps back out. Put him into a pot and slowly increase the temperature and he sits complacently until it’s too late. Likewise, when we don’t behave responsibly, our freedoms slowly trickle away.  Each of those efforts seems well-meaning and harmless at the time, but each is another example of someone restricting our choices for their interpretation of our own good. Each restriction is a loss of freedom, the consequence of patterns of behavior that show weaknesses in the dimension of responsibility.

Some Odd Thoughts

As I write these little essays, I get the impression that I often have thoughts that are out of sync with the rest of the world. Perhaps I think too hard about things, but here are a few more random observations.

I picked up a small card advertising a kind of school system open house and presentation. In part it read, “Come hear about some of the new and exciting things happening at our schools.” This is probably a symptom of current advertising where everything has to be new and exciting or new and improved or innovative and sustainable. Buzzwords fill all advertising from shoes to cars to doctor’s offices.

But if I were a parent of a child attending one of these schools, I wouldn’t care two pins about new and exciting. I would want the school to teach my children how to read, write, add and subtract. These are basic skills that anyone needs in any profession or just to live a reasonably stress-free life. Instead, in another case I see a television news segment featuring kids in the early grades crawling around on the floor to get an appreciation of STEM subjects with “educators” gushing about how wonderful it is and how it “keeps them engaged.”

Shouldn’t it be the child’s responsibility to learn and the parent’s responsibility to ensure they do? It seems in too many cases teachers are entertainers, the students are the audience and the parents are automatic advocates for their children when they step out of line, setting up an unproductive dynamic.

*****************************************************************************

Some research shows that patients in nursing homes can be comforted by dogs and other pets, but can be equally comforted and cheered up by mechanical dog-like robots. What if airlines developed a policy that so-called support animals were no longer allowed on planes. Instead people could rent a teddy bear of other stuffed comfort animal at the departing airport and turn it in when they landed. (This would not apply to legitimate service animals.) That’s never going to happen. Society is headed in the opposite direction.

*****************************************************************************

CBS Sunday Morning ran a segment a few weeks ago about the $450 million makeover of the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York City. In it the museum director mentioned that they “will also increase the number of works by female artists – five times as many [as] before.” Wow, that’s really a good thing – or is it?

Apparently the art world today harbors some resentment that the art world of the past judged art, at least in part, on the basis of whether the artist was a man or a woman, giving preference not to the quality of the art but to the sex of the artist. The quality of the art (as subjective as that can be) should be the criterion for judging what gets displayed and what is rejected, not the appearance, the status, the reputation or the political connections of the artist. That would be the really good thing.

So why is MOMA making it a point to call attention to the number of female artists? Isn’t that the same kind of objectionable thinking that prevailed in the past dressed up in a different costume? They express their objection to past flaws in the system by doing the same thing in the opposite direction and call it progress.

Is This Still A Free Country?

A brief review of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, brings up several interesting thoughts, realizations and questions. (Read the Bill of Rights in full here.) 

The first is about freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press. It should mean that people are allowed to say and write what they want within broad limits. Others can raise reasonable objections and counter arguments, or at least accept apologies. But today we find that  speakers are banned from campuses or shouted down by those who believe words are the same as weapons. We have large, powerful social media corporations expected to censor comments and pictures posted by private citizens based on arbitrary standards. We have Ellen DeGeneres scorned for attending a football game in the company of George W. Bush. Say the wrong thing, even in the form of a question and risk personal attack, silencing, losing a job or boycotts of your product.

The Second is about the right to bear arms. That really means the right to carry them not even to own them. Today arms means guns and the nation is split. Clearly the right to carry has been infringed at various levels in various places.

Some states have passed a Red Flag Law, Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), with strong approval of the electorate. If a person is considered a danger to himself or others, authorities can show up and confiscate weapons for one week, no questions asked. A judge can extend this for up to six months where there is “good cause.” At that point the accused can finally respond at a hearing, but has no legal right to representation. In Maryland, for example, the initial complaint can come not only from law enforcement, physicians, and mental health workers, but also from family members, housemates or dating partners. The list in other states is more inclusive, and the gun owners have no recourse in cases of false accusations.

The Third is about housing soldiers without consent – no problem there.

The fourth prohibits unlawful search and seizure. This is about privacy; but with the social media-driven desire to be famous, Americans are becoming more casual about their own privacy and take for granted the idea of being constantly under surveillance. Compound that lax attitude with new technology: facial recognition software and proliferating security cameras; possible leaks through computer cameras and microphones; personal assistants listening in on conversation; ISPs and grocery stores tracking our on-line activity and purchases; and other examples – privacy is ebbing away. (For an interesting description of possible future threats, see the book, Eyes in the Sky.) 

The Fifth Amendment is well known for protection against self-incrimination and the right to due process, but the public tends to decide guilt or innocence based on news reports and political affiliation. “No comment” is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. 

Consider also the current practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture where authorities can confiscate personal property on the basis of accusation, not conviction. There are many horror stories of abuse where innocent people must fight the system to reclaim seized property.

The first part of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. Many of the convictions on the local news are for crimes committed in years past. The right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him” seems to fly in the face of the idea of being attacked from a distance as rumors spread on social media. Transgressors of cultural values don't even get a trial, no less a speedy one.

The Seventh, the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases seems OK, but the complexity of modern cases and the lack of economic understanding continues to result in unreasonably high awards or settlements driven by the threat of litigation in front of a "compassionate" jury. 

The Eighth prohibits excess bail, which has been a matter of some discussion lately. Excessive is not the same for everyone. Poor people who are not a flight risk can spend months behind bars waiting for a trial, a handy tool to coerce them into pleading guilty. Like Civil Asset Forfeiture, this practice is a boon to the authorities at the expense of the innocent.

Nine and Ten are instructive. The Tenth addresses the idea of “Undelegated Powers [being] Kept by the States and the People.” The word delegated implies that the states and people are in a superior position to the Federal Government. They hand down powers to them! That certainly isn’t the way it works today!

One problem with these rights is that they apply to the government not depriving people of them. That’s the excuse used when one citizen or group tries to shut up or railroad those they disagree with. That punitive attitude is true to the letter, but contrary to the spirit.

Another problem is that they are so easy to take for granted or ignore. These are not obsolete ideas; they must be respected. Freedom is always linked to responsibility.

Rewards for Not Paying Attention

Should people be rewarded for not paying attention or for pretending they didn’t know about dangers that have been well publicized to the point that they are common knowledge? 

First, a less dire example of well-known information: a study hitting the Internet and the airways recently revealed that “Washing your hands under running water may be a better way to stop the spread of infections than using a hand sanitizer.” The hand sanitizer can be nearly as effective as washing hands for removing flu viruses, provided both are done properly. It just takes longer.

In laboratory experiments “it took about 30 seconds for the sanitizer to eliminate all the flu virus in the saline samples, but more than 4 minutes for the sanitizer to get rid of flu in the mucus samples.” From the lab tests they moved to a more real-life situation by putting mucus directly on people’s fingertips. When it was given time to dry (for 40 minutes), the hand sanitizer killed the flu virus within 30 seconds. But in a more realistic situation where the mucus was still moist, it took about 4 minutes of rubbing for the flu virus to be completely eliminated.

Proper hand washing removed traces of the virus in both cases in about 30 seconds, whether the participants used soap or not. The benefit is not from the soap, but from the rubbing under running water. 

No one is likely to rub the hand sanitizer for 4 minutes or alternatively to let their hands dry after sneezing for 40 minutes, but neither do many people spend half a minute scrubbing under running water. When a sink is not available the alcohol is a good option. 

That’s what we know today, but we had substantially the same information 10 years ago. From Live Science in October 2009: “Hand washing with ordinary soap and water is the most effective way to remove germs. But when you're on the go, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are tremendously effective in preventing the spread of the seasonal flu.” They gave 20 seconds for washing and 15 for the sanitizer, so the latest study just worked a little on the details. It wasn’t really news.

This is just one everyday example of how the media likes to present old news as some brand new revelation wrapped in the cloak of the latest study.

In light of that consider the opioid epidemic. Within the last two weeks, “OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP filed for bankruptcy protection…succumbing to pressure from more than 2,600 lawsuits alleging the company helped fuel the deadly U.S. opioid epidemic.” Nearly every state, numerous cities and counties and many others insist that the company “aggressively marketed prescription painkillers while misleading doctors and patients about their addiction and overdose risks.”

Any money awarded will not bring back even one of the 400,000 lives lost between 1999 and 2017, but the various levels of government hope to be able to confiscate money from drug company profits to remedy the situation rather than taking from tax payers.

My question is: what are they going to do with this money? Treatment is no doubt an option. Perhaps they will fund stocks of Naloxone (sometimes sold under the brand name Narcan). 

Of course, awareness will surely be part of the plan. But with the opioid epidemic in the news daily, with current Public Service Announcements and with the subject sure to come up in the upcoming presidential campaigns, what more can they do to get the word out? The company may have been playing fast and loose with the truth in the past, but now their website clearly states, “OXYCONTIN® exposes patients and other users to the risks of opioid addiction, abuse, and misuse, which can lead to overdose and death.” 

With so much information available, should compensation be available to everyone who becomes addicted from now on? At what point does society expect people to recognize and deal with the danger? In the case of cigarettes it has taken decades – people are still suing tobacco companies over risks that have been widely known for 50 years or more, but they claim to be victims. 

If risky or irresponsible behavior continues to be rewarded even well after the risks are known, problems will never be solved.