Mourning Doves

A mourning dove sits on top of the roof making an owl-like hooting noise.  Wikipedia tells me he is trying to attract a female or trying to draw his mate to the nest.  I wonder if he ever gets tired?  Hoot, hoot, hoot, all day long – and he really means it!  It doesn’t, however, make any difference to me or anyone else passing by.  He can hoot his little lungs out, but we’ve heard it all before.

Sometimes you hear people compared to sheep.  One person makes a new discovery or decides what’s cool or uncool and the rest follow along without taking time to evaluate how it affects their lives.  Lately though, I think people are becoming more like mourning doves.  Instead of hoot, hoot, hoot, we hear things like “Build a wall” or “He’s a bigot.”  They’ve already done the sheep thing, following the lead of a few in Washington who then depend on them to pick up on the mourning dove routine.  You see, the sheep only get to vote every couple of years, but the mourning doves get to hoot all day on whatever rooftop becomes available.  They really mean it, but we’ve heard it all before.

Two problems come from this behavior.  The first is the violence and the second, the lack of closure.

When a flock of mourning doves comes together to hoot for their particular cause, they never seem to notice that baboons have infiltrated their ranks, pretending to be doves.  Baboons are not doves and are not satisfied to sit and hoot.  They are fighters that often must display their dominance through physical force.  All would be calm if the exchange were confined to the doves hooting.  Everyone chants their mantra and goes home.  But the baboons will have none of it and take the first chance they get to lash out at the rival troop.  That gives the baboons hiding in the other flock an opportunity to engage in something more stimulating than hooting.  Chaos ensues.

The second problem is the lack of closure – nothing gets solved by chanting at each other and especially not by fighting in the streets.  These are not nuanced arguments based on data.  These are hoots (with a few creative variations) based on anecdotes and personal prejudices with no room for compromise and no appetite for debate.  We are right and you are wrong! – Hoot, hoot, hoot.  We are moral and you are not!  God is on our side!  And they are so busy hooting; they don’t even realize how much their behavior has in common.

The whole thing sounds pretty uncivilized, but this seems to be what America has come to.  People would rather be right than have a relationship or get anything done.  It’s not about finding a solution; it’s about shouting down or defeating the other side because they are evil.  And proving we have a truly representative government, Washington reflects the same behavior.  They don’t engage in physical fighting themselves, though we’ve seen it happen in other countries; but they delight in the chance the violence gives them to point fingers.

Unfortunately, from time to time the hooting is rewarded when it becomes loud enough to intimidate a company or lawmaking body.  Occasionally the decisions turn out to be right, but not because they are based on clear thinking.  So this normally unproductive, but sometimes risky dynamic continues.

(For perspective, here’s a definition from Wikipedia: “Jihad is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.”  We are right; we are moral; you are not!  Hoot, hoot, hoot!  Scary.)

Learning From France

Over five years ago I wrote a piece with the title “Learningfrom Italy,” and earlier this week I wrote about “Learning From Harvey.”

One benefit of behavior having consequences is the ability to use those consequences as feedback to make changes and corrections – or to continue on the same course while enjoying favorable outcomes.  When a bad situation can be traced to our own choices, it makes sense to change.  Many people figure this out.  The wiser ones look at the behavior of others, those who are struggling, to discover what behavior to avoid before they encounter the same difficulties.  Learning from the mistakes of others is always the recommended path.

What struck me about the news from France last week was the Washington Post headline about their president:  “French President Macron has spent $30,000 on makeup services in just 3 months.”  That comes out to about $330 per day.  “The fees were apparently for doing up the president in advance of news conferences, public appearances and various travels.”  (And he’s doing this while trying to cut government spending!)

But as long as we are looking at France, what about Macron’s predecessor?  Going back to a New York Times article from about 15 months ago, “President François Hollande’s personal hairdresser has been paid 9,895 euros – over $10,000 – per month since Mr. Hollande was elected in 2012, about the same amount as a government minister’s salary.”  That comes out to a total of close to half a million dollars – for haircuts!  The previously cited WAPO article points out that the makeup spending of Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, who was president before him, was not much different from Macron’s.

French voters are suspicious of their motives for such extravagant spending.  They accuse their leaders of being vain and out of touch.  But as politicians in a digital age, they probably recognize the power of optics.  Anyone who wants to make them look bad need not go to all the trouble of debating official behavior.  All they need are some unflattering pictures to promote a negative impression.  Everyone in the public eye must always look their best, lest their opponents take advantage.

Who decides that?  It’s not the politicians nor the advisors nor the press.  It’s the voters themselves – who not only vote, but also purchase products, attend movies and back causes using the same criteria.  This need for optimal optics is more evidence of the victory of the superficial over the substantive – and that’s a perspective issue.  How much better off would the French citizens be if they put more stock in competence than in appearance.  Shouldn’t we learn from them to avoid facing the same problems here?

That would be great, but everyone knows the same kind of book-by-its-cover judging goes on in America to at least the same extent, as attractive movie stars are allowed to claim credibility on subjects they have no expertise in, from vaccinations to climate change.  Celebrities run for office and win based on popularity rather than qualifications. 

Ordinary Americans also understand the power of appearance in their personal lives spending over $60 billion a year on beauty and cosmetics.  As another example, check out this on-line eyeglasses site offering 200,000 different frames with, of course, many choices of designer brands.  For glasses these days, it’s less about seeing than being seen.  The examples are legion from designer clothing and accessories to fine wine and impressive cars!  (Possibly the core of the race-relations problems and other discriminatory practices in America is the looks-like-me criteria unconsciously practiced by hiring managers and others, and assumed as an imperative when children choose a role model.  Even the concept of diversity is defined more by appearance than true variety of contributions.)

Who are we trying to impress, or a better question may be, why do we let ourselves be so easily impressed by surface characteristics?

How much better off could we be if we wisely learned from the French, demanding our public figures act the part rather than look the part – and especially embedding that philosophy into the rest of our behavior.

Learning from Harvey

The effects of Hurricane Harvey on Houston and southeastern Texas were devastating.  You couldn’t miss the pictures on television and websites.  This was a major disaster and the residents, as well as the country as a whole, will take years to fully recover.  Of course there has been some criticism:  the lack of an evacuation order; the lax zoning regulations in the city; the flawed design of the federal flood insurance program; what some considered a slow response by a mega-church, the Mayor, the Governor and the President.  These are to be expected, but overall there is a lot to admire and a lot to learn.

The most important lesson from Houston is that in times of crisis Americans pull together to overcome adversity.  People from many miles away arrived with boats and monster trucks to rescue those thousands that were trapped in their houses as the water rose.  No one asked for a pass or a membership card or questioned the religious affiliation or political beliefs of their fellow citizens as they loaded them onto the trucks and fishing boats.  Whites helped blacks; blacks rescued Hispanics; everyone lent a hand wherever help was needed.  If someone showed up from Fort Hood, no one would have turned down a ride to safety because the rescuer came from the a place named for a guy on the wrong side of the Civil War.  This was a real crisis with lives at stake!

Another point of learning that came through very clearly, is that at times of severe crisis, material possessions quickly lose their value.  People had to decide what was important enough to carry along with them in the limited space available, perhaps only a backpack or a purse – sometimes it was just the wet clothes on their backs.  That is an excellent lesson for the rest of the country to consider.

Finally, there is something about gratitude, gratitude that when you got out of bed this morning, you didn’t step into ankle-deep water.  (The thought did not cross my mind until I began to write this.)

We should also be grateful that America is so prosperous.  We have the neighbors with boats and monster trucks.  Some found motels and hotels on higher ground to retreat to until the danger passed and they could return to assess damage.  State and local governments had people and resources to assist. 

Most didn’t even notice that earlier this summer, there was also unusually severe flooding in Asia.  Whereas in Texas fewer than 50 people died, in that flood CNN reports, “at least 1,200 have died and more than 41 million people have been affected by monsoon rains and severe flooding. The rains are now moving northwest towards Pakistan, where more devastation is expected.  An estimated one-third of the entire country of Bangladesh is underwater.  In the scarce news of this disaster that appeared on American television, coverage of powerboats, monster trucks and National Guard troops were nowhere to be seen.  The response to such a weather event is highly dependent on resources, and America is equipped to respond.  It may not be as swift or efficient as some expect, but it’s far superior to most.

These are perspective issues:  appreciation and gratitude.  There is precious little time for reflection and gratitude as we gulp down a cup of coffee before rushing to the next meeting or picking up the kids.  But knowing our neighbors and strangers will help in a crisis and understanding that missing out on the next must-have purchase would not be the end of the world may be worth a little quiet time.

Dangers with Self-diagnosis and Prescription

Almost every day a study or two comes out in the news telling what substance(s) may improve health or reduce the chances of catching some disease.  Notice that they invariably use the word may.  Often these are preliminary studies that require confirmation by duplication, application to a larger sample size or experimental rather than observational design.  The news may be in response to a press release from the researchers themselves or a standard report on a journal article.

Two came my way a couple of days ago.  One said that Vitamin C may prove effective in preventing leukemia, a blood cancer.  The second reported that lithium may lower the incidence of dementia.

I looked up the Vitamin C news on msn.com and was immediately suspicious based on the first sentence that began, “Vitamin C has long been associated with maintaining a healthy immune system and warding off the common cold.” 

Hold on a minute!  NPR ran a program back in 2006 called The Vitamin C Myth in which their expert stated, “There's very little evidence available that shows that vitamin C in mega doses is good for anything.”  This is supported by other reviews of studies discussed here and here.  There is some evidence that it may slightly reduce the duration and intensity of a cold, but that doesn’t mean taking extra Vitamin C does any good.

The Mayo Clinic reminds us that a healthy diet ordinarily provides enough Vitamin C for most Americans.  “A large orange or a cup of strawberries, chopped red pepper or broccoli provide enough vitamin C for the day. Any extra vitamin C will simply be flushed out of your body in your urine.”  Those mega-doses are usually harmless, but they don’t do any good, are flushed down the toilet and can cause some people to experience unwelcome side effects including: diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, heartburn, abdominal discomfort, headaches, insomnia or kidney stones.

That first sentence shows the writer being sloppy or careless or misinformed.  But setting aside that issue, the conclusion of the article was, “Vitamin C deficits in the body may help contribute to leukemia,” so it may play a role in leukemia prevention.”  Since the already popular advice of eating a healthy diet precludes deficits, there’s no news here.

I moved on to do some research on lithium for dementia.  This was based on an observational study from Denmark where the researchers identified the amount of lithium naturally found in the drinking water in various parts of the country and looked for the relative incidence of dementia in the different populations over a long period. Results were published last month in JAMA Psychiatry.  “Higher long-term lithium exposure from drinking water may be associated with a lower incidence of dementia.”  The watch-out was that the association was nonlinear, that is, certain levels seemed to be effective and others did not – larger or smaller doses did not produce proportionate results.  So getting the proper dose was fairly critical.

The positive effects of lithium have been studied for a long time as shown by this 2003 headline: “Bipolar Drug Keeps Mouse Brains Free of Damaging Plaque.”  Again this is just a further investigation of the hypothesis that lithium may have some effect on dementia – advancement in understanding, but nothing earth shattering.

The concern is that news of this nature that highlights possible relationships comes at us constantly.  Because dementia, which most people think of as Alzheimer’s, a well-publicized subset of broader memory problems, is scary, as is leukemia or any kind of cancer; it is likely that some people hearing news like this will dash out to the health food store and stock up on whatever may prevent one disease or reduce the effects of another.  The next thing you know, the kitchen table is littered with supplements.  The problems are, as these two examples clearly show, doses are not definite, effects are not proven and dangers lurk in the details.

This and That (2)

I.  In the grocery store the other day I saw 12-packs of cola selling for $3.33.  At the end of the aisle was a big sign announcing 24-packs of the same product for $7.68.  How much critical thinking does it take to figure out that two 12-packs is a much better deal - $6.66 vs. $7.68?  It’s like someone walking up and handing out dollar bills just for paying attention.

II.  Will the day come when no one has a vocabulary larger than 20,000 words, because all other words have been declared by someone or other to be hurtful or offensive?  We will run out of letter-words and have to double up - the N-word, the F-word, the B2-word, the C23-word, etc.

III.  A question that seems to be coming up more frequently:  Is any particular website (or Facebook posting) real, a parody or someone’s idea of a joke?  It’s getting harder and harder to tell them apart.

IV.  Has the news media deteriorated because of the American need to be entertained?  We will no longer stand for the talking heads, so they send reporters to the scene of an incident long after everyone else has moved on, having them stand out in the weather (sometimes in the dark) to tell us about the shooting or collision that happened hours ago.  To keep us from turning back to our smartphones, they must show us more non-news just to keep things everyone interested, to elicit amusement or outrage:  cute pets or wildlife, what’s “trending,” (usually dire) predictions of the future, opinions of non-experts like "the man on the street” or their media colleagues.  Based on what they deliver, I no longer believe they deserve to be referred to as journalists.  Many just do Google searches, pass along press releases, publish leaks, tell us their opinion of celebrity or political Tweets or send cameras to public or weather events.  As one friend put it, “If we could only harness the energy of Walter Cronkite spinning in his grave, our problems would be solved!”

V.  Breakfast is back, rising like a phoenix.  This study reported in an August 17, 2017 article finds that children who skipped breakfast “were missing out on key nutrients which impacted their productivity throughout the day.”  Researchers discovered this after studying the habits and performance of 802 children.

Why the phoenix analogy?  Years ago breakfast was “your most important meal.” As indicated above, it got you off to a good start.  But recently this has been the subject of debate rather than accepted wisdom.  About 6 years ago people began calling it a myth, as here where they come right out and say breakfast is not important.  Others hopped on board the myth bandwagon.  The controversy centered around whether skipping breakfast was good or bad for weight control rather than its effect on overall health or performance.  A 2014 CBS report recommends eating breakfast because previous studies gave conflicting advice, “with some suggesting that eating breakfast can help people lose weight and others finding the opposite.”  This continued conflicting advice is clear from a 2015 headline reading:  “New Study Shows No Signs That Skipping Breakfast Will Make You Gain Weight.”  But an earlier CBS report said it would.

As of today breakfast is good for children, and another study last January said that “skipping breakfast or eating late in the day could raise the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.”  Perhaps the phoenix comparison was a bad one and a ping pong ball is more appropriate.  What’s a mother (or a dieter) to do?!  Pick a side and you can find a study to back you up.