To say that the current election is atypical would be a gross understatement. We have no other presidential election to compare it to and we have become somewhat numb to the rhetoric and general confusion of the process.
First of all it has been more than a year since the multitude of candidates announced their intentions to be our next president. And in debate after debate there was an expectation of entertainment and no expectation of policy or potential direction from any of the candidates. And that is the nutshell around which this post is based. We now have two candidates who have become the entertainment duo that is making decisions for voters very difficult.
As an example let’s look at the three presidential debates that were watched by more people than any other debates in history. Were the 61 million viewers for the last debate expecting substantive policy positions and clear differences in their approach to governing? No, the majority were hoping for fireworks and gladiatorial conflict. Would the Christians or Lions win? Who knows? Unfortunately, the voters lost!
We have had debates in the past where there were “one liners” that were entertaining but the process was civil and frequently, as with most debates, not really helpful. As always there is the litany of those problems that the candidates think that the voters want to hear about and how they will solve them. Of course, they fail to recognize publicly that the Executive branch is only one third of our government and that Congress makes the law and the Supreme Court mediates any differences. It is the democratic checks and balance. The president cannot change the tax laws, or build a wall without Congress!
Fortunately, it is almost over and there will be a winner and loser. But, throughout this agonizing process there have been big winners; the networks and cable news outlets. This has been a windfall for them and only marginally helpful to the voter.
Elections should be based on substance and not entertainment and soon I can replace this post with something less pessimistic…
 

This post was motivated by the most recent shootings of black men by white police officers and the current political discourse about gender and racial equality and immigration. This is not the first time I have struggled to understand the world around me but more significantly why I have such visceral reactions to what I hear and feel about my own biases. I do not have an answer or some “silver bullet” solution to the problem of these biases but I do know that we have to talk about our own responsibility toward bias to begin to change the way we feel about those who are different.
I have always known that I have some bias either inherent or implicit about some other group or individuals. But, I am not alone in the fact that I see differences when I should see the similarities; we all have some skewed visions and observations about the world that we live in. Let me first define bias so we all have some context:
Frequently called implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious and seemingly irrational way.  These biases, which include both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without a person’s awareness or intentional control.  These assessments are in the subconscious. Therefore, they are different than those that we are aware of and hide and are not easy to identify. For a simple example, I don’t like those lime green cars that I occasionally see. To me they are horrid but if I was talking to an owner of one I would not say that I thought it was terrible. That would be the “politically correct” response. But, the implicit associations we have in our subconscious cause us to have feelings and attitudes about other people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age, and appearance.  These attitudes develop over the course of a lifetime beginning at a very early age through exposure to direct and indirect messages. We are influenced by family, friends, the media, and most recently by social media communication. It is difficult to differentiate between the haters and the trolls!
The overall consensus proposed by those who want to change the present bias controlled dialog seems to be that we have to begin talking about the problems concerning race, homophobia, and gender inequality. So, who do we talk to in order to change the dynamic currently in our daily lives? Political discourse, forums, and community meetings have been fostered and promoted for years but the problem seems worse. Perhaps it has really remained static and we are simply hearing about these egregious behaviors due to everything being videotaped and circulated via social and the mainstream media.
But, I have a different explanation and it is that we are “hardwired” to focus, at least subconsciously, on differences. If we look back at the history of early mankind we learn that there were groups of our very early ancestors and they depended on the strength of the group and to fear other or different people. Resources were scarce and survival depended on protection and preservation of the group or tribe. So, fast-forward to today and what do we see? Across the world there are tribes that tend to be close to others who believe in the same values and traditions. Whether it is religion, gender, political, or racial, the comfort level is greater in groups with similarities. Those who fail to support the group are different and are either to be feared or at least dismissed as not part of the fraternity.
So, what is the bottom line to this dilemma? We do know that hardwiring can be changed but it has not yet really happened. We do need to continue having group discussions but we need to examine our own individual biases in the process. There is a test to learn about our own biases called Projectimplicit from Harvard but I don’t need a test to examine my own hidden agenda. I have to question why I feel the way I do and then be honest about what I learn.
Now, if I can just find someone who owns one of those lime green cars…
 
 

I am fairly certain that we all have horror stories regarding customer service but this one is a little bit different. It is different because I was trying to help someone else who failed to receive their package from UPS. That is due to the fact that the package was left at my front door in error. I thought that this should be a reasonably simple problem to solve but I was so wrong! The assistance that I thought would be helpful was also time sensitive as the package was 19 pounds of Omaha Steaks and was perishable.
It was Friday afternoon before the Labor Day holiday when I saw a large white Styrofoam cooler package on my front porch. The delivery person must have been in stealth mode because I heard nothing to indicate a delivery. Upon investigation the package was for a woman at another address than mine but there was some good news. Her name, address, and phone number was on the shipping label along with the tracking number. Good luck that the phone number was there so this should be a one- phone call intervention. Two hours later I had a different opinion. The following is mostly paraphrased so no quotations are necessary.
I called the telephone number and received that wonderful message that the mailbox was full, Goodbye! I tried several times and the name on the message was correct so it seemed that the best resolution was to contact UPS. That should be easy. Once again, I had discovered that this assumption was wrong. Now, bear in mind that I live within 10 miles of a UPS distribution center and several UPS stores and drop boxes. So, I called the distribution center and described the problem and an annoyed receptionist told me that they don’t do deliveries. Now, I have seen this facility and there are trucks being loaded 24/7 but they don’t do deliveries! She then terminated the call. Thanks!
So, I found a customer service number online at 1-800 PICKUPS and waited in a queue for 10 minutes. A laughing woman who almost spoke English answered while several other women in the background were apparently having a party and laughing as well. And, I had to wait for 10 minutes for my call to be answered. She asked me to read all of the information on the label and then simply said that she could not provide any information but that someone would call me within an hour! Tick, tick, tick!
About 45 minutes later a man called from UPS and repeated all of the information that I had already provided and advised that all of the drivers were done for the day and they could do nothing to pick up the package. So, I asked about either a courier service or a UPS employee to take up the slack. He countered with what about me delivering the package? I reminded him that I don’t work for UPS and that if I delivered the package I would be taking responsible for the contents. If it was spoiled or had been tampered with UPS was not involved with the delivery. I declined to take that responsibility! His response was that since Monday was a holiday the package would be picked up on Tuesday and returned to Omaha Steaks.
It is now Labor Day and the package is still here, probably spoiled, and the woman has most likely received an email saying that the package was delivered. If UPS failed to notify her she is probably a bit confused.
Now I am not necessarily calling out UPS for its unwillingness to remedy the problem in a timely way, but for the prices that it charges for shipping, I would have expected a better response. But this seems to be the strategy for many large companies and I guess that I should have expected what I received. But it is a sad commentary. I was just following Ellen’s closing comment, “be kind to one another”! I suspect that many companies have not seen the Ellen show…
 
 
 
 
 

Four years ago I posted an entry on the future of public libraries and outlined some of the many services offered with the use of the free library card (Here). Since then I have discovered that the services locally have been expanded and there are more reasons than ever to use this very accessible facility. This may be true at your local library as well.
My concern for the future of the library in that earlier post was somewhat focused on the younger generation. But, after talking with some adults older than the millennials, this focal point seems less accurate. Some did not even know where the library was located; and we are in a small town! There is a continuing sense that everything that we need to know is on the internet. And, to some extent there are reasons to use search engines and Wikipedia, but there are limitations.
What happens when you do an initial search? You get a million hits in .46 seconds and 99.9% are useless and do not pertain to the search. Promoted links and unrelated data abounds. So, you refine your search and if you are proficient, you may find useful information. But, is the information accurate? It is fairly easy to find mistakes on many sites and even Wikipedia. So, what does this have to do with your local library? You have the opportunity to talk to a librarian who knows not only written material but the internet as well. And, these librarians are well trained and professional and they are human! They can guide and refine the search criteria by actually speaking to you. Local libraries also have access to college and university material that can be borrowed on the inter-library program.
Local libraries are also public spaces where classes can be taught, music and poetry presented live, and many have WiFi free. And in our local library they even have a 3D printer! So, it’s time to check out your local library and maybe a book, CD, movie, e-book or something else that is interesting…
 

This is a re-post of a special entry that I wrote on my now archived page on mental health. It was written after the December 14th, 2012 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is now almost four years later, with several more shootings during the intervening years. This post is not a pretense of understanding or explanation, but rather some thoughts and observations about the incredibly difficult task of processing  and dealing with the act of mass murder.

This post deviates from the overall direction of this blog page in that it does not follow the concept of covering the major mental illnesses and relevant information. Instead, this post is a response to the most recent mass murder of both adults and children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Everybody has had some reaction to this level of violence, perhaps due to the ages of the victims, or to the occurrence of another senseless shooting. But, as part of the mental health community, I hear the voices from many sources that have a great deal of noise and very little balanced consideration for the complexity of the issue of mass murder. It may be a completely valid visceral reaction that I hear, but many of the loudest voices are not qualified as professionals to guide a meaningful discussion of the issues. In some cases, the comments are from vested interests; in others, it is a reflection of the complicated time in which we live. In the hope of tempering this conversation I offer the following thoughts, recognizing that there is no single solution, and that we will experience the death of innocent victims again. Whether or not there is a mental illness involved, I count myself among many others that do not have an answer. But, there are some insights that may be helpful in clarifying the murders that are becoming more commonplace, and more of an expected event.
Shortly after all of the most recent shootings, there has been a constant barrage of conversation about guns and gun violence. Both sides of the issue are fierce, with the second amendment proponents being concerned about losing their right to bear arms, and the detractors fearing that more guns will lead to more violence. But, as a nation, we already have more guns per capita than any other civilized country. And, most gun owners are responsible with weapons and are not committing mass murder. Certainly there should be a debate about assault guns with high capacity clips and magazines, but again, we have millions of these weapons in circulation already. The federal law concerning background checks is another area for consideration. We know that about 40% of all guns sold occur in the secondary market, gun shows and private sales and these sales require no background check. And, in addition, there are the guns stolen from residential burglary. So, although there is a lot of gun commentary, there is very little that can actually be done with “more control”.
The next most loudly trumpeted reason for the mass murders is the violence in movies, TV, and video games. And clearly, we have become somewhat desensitized to the violence that we see in these venues and on the news program. It seems as if every day there is a shooting, stabbing, or other violent act in many communities. The only difference is in the level of numbers. Only the high body count murders make national news. We will have to leave it to the sociologists to decide if the violence in entertainment is a reflection of reality, or if the reality is being driven by the entertainment industry. But, we also run squarely into the first amendment when we try to control free speech.
The one aspect that seems most perplexing is the discussion of the shooter themselves. As citizens, we have only limited information with regard to the information harvested from each of these incidents. But we do have some general guidelines about the individuals involved. Many are solo shooters with the most recent exception being the Columbine murders. But the profile offered is that the event has been considered for some period of time, that the weapons required are obtained, there is a plan for implementation, and there is an end game; the shooter dies by a self-inflicted gunshot. So, the act is organized, premeditated, and there is an exit strategy. Additionally, the shooter is often described as a loner, somewhat socially ill at ease, and at times, either writes about or talks about his/her intentions and seeks notoriety. (As a thought, it might be helpful to not even report the shooters name or plaster his image on the news to take away the 15 minutes of interest in him). But this profile does not necessarily describe a mental illness but rather a skewed state of mind. And, this is the most problematic concern with regard to identifying a potential killer.
This is what I consider the truly grey area of our mental health system. For those patients who have demonstrated a valid mental illness, there is treatment. Most are identified by parents, teachers, or others in the patient’s life and help is available. But, we have laws that protect an individual from being forced into treatment unless they have demonstrated the desire to harm themselves or others. And, that is the case with many of the shooters that we have seen recently. They simply do not fit the criteria for “forced treatment”. It is very similar for dealing with addiction in that we cannot force an addict to seek treatment unless there is a threat involved. Can we, or should we change the laws protecting our right to free choice? This is a prime example of those “falling between the cracks” and there is no easy answer. But, someone knows the next shooter and they are really at a loss when it comes to intervening unless there is a demonstrable threat.
Perhaps the Vice Presidential task force that was recently named by the president will have some concrete recommendations and constructive dialog to offer a very weary public. I think that we are all tired of hearing that we must do something so that “this never happens again”. But, we all know that it will…

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I really have to start this post with the opening thought that I do not enjoy seeing people injured, killed, or walking into traffic or other objects while looking at their cell phones. Apparently it is not a thought shared by YouTube as there are many videos of just that behavior based on stupidity and deemed “funny”.  But, the reaction is taking a strange turn, as cities have either accommodated or are considering protecting the people in the shallow end of the gene pool.
The first city that I have found that has started to protect this privileged class of easily distracted walkers is Augsburg, Germany. They have installed the first supplemental traffic lights embedded in the ground so that people looking at their smart phones can see the red lights. (Cover photo). This is truly a case where the phone is smarter than the people! But there are other cities looking at protecting the mobile fanatic.
This rather expensive approach to safety is based on a European survey that found that 20 % of pedestrians were distracted by their phones. However, a survey by the University of Washington found that the number is even higher in the United States as 1 in 3 Americans are busy texting or otherwise engaged in some form of phone distraction. But, that begs the question of what is so important as to risk injury or death to keep up with social media or other “critical information”?
It is certainly possible that an urgent or emergency call or text is being received; but, the logical solution is to stop walking and get out of the way of other people and take care of the task. I guess that the operative word here is logical. It is just difficult for me to believe that we are so important that we have to be engaged 100 % of the time.
Now I recognize that this post is probably not politically correct and may offend some readers. But, we have so many ways to become injured or die every day that introducing a new method of masochism seems like stupidity to me. Now I have to get back to watching YouTube…
 
 

We don’t usually consider snacks like Ritz crackers and Cheez-Its as healthy foods but more of a diversion in our diet. But, manufacturers like to sell more product so they have used terms like “new taste”, “fat free”, or the newer scam “whole grain” or whole wheat”. And, it is clear that they want us to notice the new terms and believe that we are buying a healthier snack.
 Whole grains are more nutritious as they contain all of the grain including the germ and the bran. They also have more phytochemicals and antioxidants. And, the added fiber is a benefit. But, identifying the whole grain can be difficult. The food labels are frequently misleading and designed to obscure the true value of the food. But the above mentioned snack products have more white flour than whole wheat flour and with only one gram of fiber. So, there is virtually no nutritional difference between the original and “enhanced” products.
So how do these food products get to make claims that are not true? We can thank the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for being lax to say the least and being negligent in protecting the public. The FDA does not mandate the real amount of whole grain or whole wheat in a food; they simply recommend it! This same problem exists with bread as well and it can be confusing to choose between whole wheat, enriched wheat, multi-grain, and all of the other designations. So, how can we select a real whole grain product?
The best way to start is to look for the word “whole” before the name of the grains and search for a product that lists whole grain as its first ingredient indicating that the food has more of this than any other ingredient. If it says “wheat flour” it is white!
 

Another good way to identify whole wheat content is to look for the Whole Foods Council stamp as shown, They are a non-profit advocacy group with a great website here. If we take the time to be better informed we can find the elusive whole wheat!

DTCA (Direct to Consumer Advertising) of drugs and medications has been around since the early 20th century. It was either in newspapers, periodicals, or early radio. Some of the products were genuine medications but many were simply “patent medicines” or snake oil. Most, if not all had either alcohol or cocaine as the “active” curative compound. During the early television programs there were some products with medical benefit. The introduction of “Speedy Alka-Seltzer” and Bayer aspirin come to mind.  But that simple and essentially innocuous time has long come and gone.
Now, all television programs in the US have drugs advertised that will cure everything from toenail fungus, to erectile dysfunction. There are heart medications, diabetes, and other drugs that are serious and with the correct use can be of great value. But, how can the general viewer evaluate the potential application to their condition? They can’t! But that does not seem to matter when it comes to the drug companies spending billions on advertising their products. The prevailing mantra that motivates them is that the “advertising promotes a dialog with the medical professionals and that is good for the patient”.  The reality is that the drug companies hope that the patient will ask for a specific drug because the benefits will solve their condition. And, what about the doctors or health professionals who are pressured to write the prescription? Although hard numbers are difficult to come by, the AMA (American Medical Association), believes that about one third of viewers ask for a specific drug, and that two thirds of those actually receive the advertised drug. This is in spite of the fact that all of the side-effects which by mandate, must accompany the ad, are serious or dangerous, “including death” are reported. As a side note the AMA voted in November of 2015 to have the TV ads banned. But, they have no power to do so as only the Federal Drug Administration or Congress can change the rules. And, with the BIG PHARMA lobbyists and cash it would not be likely to happen soon. 
Despite the fact that these drug advertisements are annoying and seemingly endless, there is a greater problem. With each ad blitz comes an increase in the medication cost. The pharmaceutical industry already over charges many drugs and advertising just raises the cost to the point that many people simply cannot afford the “wonder drug” being advertised. When we see a celebrity hawking a drug you can bet that we will pay for that endorsement; then watch the as the problem  becomes worse as the next ad has a tort lawyer wanting us to join a class action suit against the current drug being advertised.  And we wonder why the cost of medications are so high!
So, if all TV ads for drugs were ended, the cost of medications would go down right? Well no! We still have social media, papers, and the many periodical magazines. There seems to be no easy way out of the dilemma but stopping TV ads would be a nice break in the marketing madness. For a very comprehensive history of drug advertising please read the article from the National Institutes of Health here. It is lengthy but it is an excellent background about how we arrived with the current situation.



 
 
 

This post concerning genetically modified organisms and our food supply is not intended to either promote or dispute the fact that we are experiencing a considerable debate about food safety, labeling, and the economics of genetic engineering. Rather, it is about the rush to judgment from all sides without regard for the buying public and the dissemination of useful information to make informed choices.
We have been buying GMO (genetically modified organisms) for over 15 years. The vast majority of corn, soy, canola, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are now genetically engineered, and they are often used as ingredients in processed foods. New salmon breeds that reach maturity faster are being introduced to consumers. Farmers are growing crops that are disease resistant and potatoes that do not suffer bruising.
But, in reality we have been modifying food for years by hybridization. Many types of fruits and vegetables have been developed by grafting one type of plant to another for desired change. But, this process is an alteration of natural selection and not the injection of a gene to change the food characteristics like taste, freshness over time, ripening, and disease resistance. But this process has changed with our ability to manipulate the genetic structure of foods almost at will. But, it very much a double edged sword; the countries in the world that are food insecure could benefit greatly from food that lasts longer, grows in poorer soil, require less water, and matures more quickly. However, a 15 year history of products being consumed is not really long enough to judge long-term effects on humans. There is general agreement that GMO have not caused any untoward or medical concerns and the scientific community has generally blessed the science behind genetic manipulation.
Now let’s consider the problem that always contaminates any discussion of food safety.  And that is the role of companies that supply genetically altered seeds that are bound by profit and not by humanitarian desires like Monsanto, and other large scale producers. Despite the fact that most countries require labeling to identify GMO foods, the US does not. It is the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) that should be watching out for problems in the food supply chain. But the issue with GMO is similar to the safety of vitamins and dietary supplements. Nobody is watching the store!
So, the question now being debated is whether or not labeling should be mandatory on all GMO products. But, my observation is that labeling may tell us that it is modified, but what does that mean? Without good information concerning changes in our food we are on our own to decide if we trust the companies and the genetic engineers to follow due diligence before selling it to us. My fear is that the pipeline will be full of products that have been modified long before we have adequate information. But, there is a link to a Scientific American article to provide some context here. It seems as if bon appetite has become caveat emptor.

The Elf on a Shelf: is a 2004 children's picture book, written and self-published by American author Carol Aebersold and daughter Chanda Bell and illustrated by Coë Steinwart. The book tells a Christmas-themed story, written in rhyme, that explains how Santa Claus knows who is naughty and who is nice. It describes elves visiting children between Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve, after which they return to the North Pole until the next holiday season. The Elf on the Shelf comes in a special box that features a hardbound picture book and a small soft toy in the form of a pixie scout elf.
The magic and the rules begin when a family “adopts” an elf and gives it a name. And then, the Christmas fun begins. The elf can’t move when it is being observed, but at night it can get into all kinks of mischief. Of course the parents can move the elf at night and make it appear to do mystical things like pour sugar on the floor or make snow angels in flour. But, the children aren’t allowed to touch the elf at all. Ostensibly the only task for the elf is to watch the child for naughty and nice behavior and fly back to the North Pole to “report” to Santa.
And, as we all know, children have very active imaginations and have a belief in those magical skills of the elf. But the question has to be asked, is the subtle message being offered that there is no privacy and the elf will tattle on all behavior? At first I thought that this is no different than Santa who knows who is naughty and nice and the elf. But then it occurred to me that children can have some dialog with Santa at the mall, through letters to the North Pole, and with other children and parents. But the elf is different. He is all-knowing and all-seeing, and children can see this as a bit creepy. So, here is a thought to counter that possibility. Change the rules! Allow the children to move the elf on alternate nights and give them some control over the power of the elf. They could put it near the liquor cabinet or other “sensitive” places. Who loses privacy then?
Another product that has real privacy concerns is the new “Hello Barbie” from Mattel.  It has an embedded microphone and the child can tell Barbie everything. This then goes to the cloud (web based servers) and the information is available to Mattel and the parents; and, anyone who has hacked the server! “Hi Barbie, my name is Amy and I live at 1234 Shady Lane in any town USA. I live with my mother and… Well, you get the picture. Let’s hope that she doesn’t get the credit card.
The holidays used to be a simple time when we used fear of “no presents” to control behavior and technology has allowed us to fear everything about our privacy. It truly is a Brave New World…