So What Do I Do Now?

Okay, so you know your problem. You saw a professional who gave you a diagnosis, or you read something somewhere, or you had a person you deem trustworthy suggest something. Some of the people I see collect the many possibilities indiscriminately, almost taking pride in the various tags that have been hung on them.
And there is a kind of comfort in putting a name to what's wrong, however accurate or inaccurate that name might be. It would seem better to know even the worst prognosis than to wander in the darkness. Once we know, hope seem possible again.
But that still leaves us with the unanswered question: whaddya gonna do about it? Fatalistically accept it? Try to ignore the obvious for as long as possible? Run away, far away? Jump from this possible solution to that, like a frantic flea at a dog convention? Yes, try enough potential solutions, and one of them is bound to help, like the old idea that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of word processors would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.
Of course, there are more forms of remedy today than there ever were, today, and some of them actually do some good! We try to quicken the search by asking, but that takes us back to all those monkeys! Or we can determine just what form of help we are willing to accept, and look only there. It must be a man/woman, religious/secular, trained/well-meaning. We are entitled, even encouraged to seek the helper we decide is right for us. Yes, this means a lot of dead ends and false starts, as well as a colossal waste of our valuable time, but it is better to find someone you like rather than settling for who you can get. (Some have the same issue with relationships!)
But we actually get something out of this search: we take responsibility. We are not blindly taking the next one in line. Nor are we stuck with whomever we were assigned to. As annoying and frustrating as it might seem to my fellow clinicians to have a client population so tremendously choosy, at least they are no longer so passive nor helpless. They are there because they made the decision to be on their own.
Now our job is to help them determine what they do now.

And God Frowned

NEWS ITEM: In Ecuador, there is a state-supported mental health clinic that purports to specialize in curing homosexuality. Filled with mostly women patients, the use of torture, sexual abuse and old-fashioned brain-washing to make these people "straight" is given approval by the government.
Okay, no secret: I have a very personal bias in favor of the different. This means male/female, skin colors, ethnic/national, tall/short, and, um, sexual orientation. Yet some would question that, averring that the only proper, acceptable child of God is the white Caucasian  straight male, preferably with blond hair and blue eyes. At least, that's the model we see in the media (TV shows, movies, ads both printed and shown.)
Following that same reasoning, there should only be certain breeds of dog, certain kinds of houses, certain careers and limited forms of spiritual expression. What's more, divergences from such norms are not merely differences, but are wrong, condemned by the divine, and should be eliminated forthwith and ASAP!
Well, if ya insist on being such a pigheaded bigot, that's yer right (if we expect others to tolerate us, we gotta tolerate even those we can stand the least!) But know this: there is no explicit condemnation of the different in the scriptures (of whatever faith you choose). Sure, in the Christian writings there are prohibitions against male temple prostitutes, and strong support of traditional marriage as against the common behavior of the time to marry for convenience but then have as many lovers (of any sex and any age) as possible.
So when people come to me for therapy regarding their sexual orientation, I'm going to help them deal with it as they would deal with any issue causing them undue anxiety and distress. I am not going to "cure" their homosexuality. That would be like the awful things children went through many years ago when teachers decided right-handedness was the only acceptable way to write, so they strove to "cure" left-handers of that behavior.
Yes, people come to me to be "cured" of their sexual orientation. Well, if the husband of a certain presidential candidate can run a clinic for doing exactly that, I'm not surprised that people struggling with their sexual orientation might not give in to certain social pressures and look for a "cure." But this is similar to "curing" eye color by tinted contact lenses, or like "curing" hair loss by a toupee, or like counting on high heels to "cure" being short.
My God does not differentiate or discriminate based on outward appearances. (In fact, that was one of the earliest insights for the Christian church.) God does not frown on some and smile on others, any more than the rain falls on only a select few, nor the sun to shine just in certain places at certain times. Put away those carefully chosen Bible verses and recognize them for the defenses against your own homophobia that they are. (We'll talk another time about picking and choosing what in the Bible we decide to follow and what the psychological aspects are of that.)
If we really affirm God as love, should we discriminate as what sort of love that should be?

But Some Are more Equal Than Others...

In our society today, there is much energy being expended on the issue of inequality, especially the fact that many people (most, in fact) earn far less, have fewer resources, work in less-prestigious jobs than a smaller percentageof the population. This has led to demonstrations, occupations and much, much discussion. Yes, I am in sympathy with the young people who are involved in this movement, and I wish them the best (was something like what I did, back in the day.)
But there is some confusion here regarding the issue of equality; some folks who are in a position of authority are threatened by such talk. They have difficulty distinguishing the idea that all people are of equal value from the fact that some have greater knowledge, more academic credentials, broader life experience than others. A parent is of equal worth to any child, even though the parent has the authority to decide the best way of life for that child. A doctor may not be any better as a person than a given patient, even though that doctor has the ability to help that the patient might seek out. The judge is just as human and limited as any lawyer or defendant, even though one might rule legally on the other.
The confusion arises when someone with expertise in one area offends by condescension to a person in another area altogether. Yes, I have my areas of expertise, but that should not guarantee me deference in any other area, however strong my opinions or ardent my feelings in that area.
So does that mean that we should listen to all, give equal consideration regardless of their knowledge and understanding? Well, yes, with the common assumption that we are all equally aware of who is worth taking seriously and who is not. I hate the idea of giving the people I disagree with equal voice and time, but unless I know my opponent, I do not know what I am facing. It becomes like chasing a black cat in a dark room, and constantly crying, "Here it is! I have it!"
All people created equal: that is what we proclaim. It doesn't mean we should all be cookie-cutter-copies, nor that we pretend not to see differences. But it does mean that I am of the same worth as you, and you as me, regardless of what bank balance or job title we respectively have.

Who You Gonna Trust?

There was a time when it was obvious who the trustworthy were supposed to be: family, friends, religious and civic leaders, to name just a few. These were the people we counted on, those we were sure would never betray us or lead us astray. No one told us of the darker side of these people, and even should we catch a glimpse of "that man behind the curtain", we would still give them the benefit of the doubt.
Trust today has become an endangered aspect of life. In fact, the very people we used to trust well-nigh unconditionally are the same we now reject almost automatically. It seems that trust is a difficult load to carry, and tempting to take advantage of. The politicians we looked to as founts of wisdom are now seen as self-serving buffoons. The clergy we looked to for guidance are now seen as abusers. Doctors are seen as only out for the buck, not for the health of the patient. Teachers, community leaders, others we sought direction from, all are now seen as having some secret motive, some hidden agenda.
Granted, I am painting with a very broad brush. There are many, if not most, in each group who are sincere, competent people that deserve our trust and work hard to earn it. But the average person pays no attention to the exception to their personal rule; they (whoever they might be) are simply not to be trusted. And, unfortunately, there have more than enough instances to make us feel that our bias is valid.
The only solution to this conundrum is to trust. Otherwise, it becomes a problem preventing its own solution. We don't trust others, who therefore resort to the very behavior we didn't trust the for (because, after all, why not? they already don't trust!) and this confirms us in our decision not to trust. But if we would reclaim trust as important to our lives, we must take the risk. Trust is like a muscle: if you want to strengthen it, you must use it. And the only way to exercise is, uh, to trust!
This is not a quick solution; much water has gone under this particular bridge and change will come gradually. But there is another side to this. They must act in such a way as to prove trust worthy! Which might mean acting in the same way as they already do. But when people realize that it might be in their best interests to behave in a more trustworthy manner, they will seek to make the things they do more obvious.We sometimes don't trust people not because of what they do, but because of what we assume they might have done.
Please do not assume the above is only social commentary: one of the biggest issues couples bring into marital therapy is trust! It applies to couples, families, friends and neighbors.
Of course, there are those whose entire life is built around not trusting anybody. And there are those who should be treated with an excess of caution. But we cannot get anywhere in society if we assume such are the common breed around us. You can begin on the right path by trusting everything I just said.

Nobody Knows The Trouble I Seen

Sometimes when difficulty hits, we just can't seem to stop going over and over and over it no matter how painful it might be to review it one more time and how annoying it might be to our nearest and dearest to hear the same old thing. Sometimes we keep it to ourselves in a misguided attempt to prove our fortitude and an equally mistaken belief that no one would care anyway.  Sometimes we get stuck in that painful place and sometimes we try to run away from it.
One of the differences between men and women (flagrant generalization ahead!) is the way we share our problems and what we expect in return. Men (ahem! cough!) tend not to share their problems in what I call the John Wayne Syndrome ("Men don't cry, pilgrim! They bleed!") Or if there is any sharing, the expectation is that it will be a problem-solving session. The focus then, see, is not on the person in pain, but in the source of the pain, and what should be done about it. And make that solution as quick and concrete as possible, thank you very much. So it becomes external in nature, with little consideration of how this guy may have played a part in what happened.
Women, on the other hand, can be quite open about their pain, given the right confidante and the right opportunity. But they have a different expectation; they want someone to listen, to validate their feelings. They do not want someone to suggest what should be done about the problem, as that seems like rejection and dismissal of what they are going through. Guys, when your lady begins to tell you what hurts her, your best move is to shut up and let her tell you all about it. Don't try to solve the problem, unless she specifically asks you.
There can be a time for mutual problem-solving, but first there has to be the mutual openness and trust of sharing deeply. If a guy cam start at that level, it may be confusing, but it should be welcome.

I'll Only Tell You Kids Once!

First, my credentials: I have off-spring of my own. (They are of an age where it would be too condescending to call them "children" and too specific to limit them to "daughters.") So, yes, I have had experience being a parent. How good a parent, well...
The biggest issue I deal with in my practice is parent-child relationships. (Often, even with adults!) Many parents call me seeking a therapist with expertise in child psychology, or to make an appointment for a son or daughter, or help dealing with the impact of an out-of-control child. The problem came be as simple (!) as an adolescent who is behaving, well, like a teenager, or it can be as serious as a youngster who has some form of physical/emotional handicap. Whatever the precipitating crisis might be, the desire is the same: fix my kid!
Too often the problem stems from confusion over proper limits; sometimes one parent is very strict and the other parent very accepting. They cannot agree on the rules nor how one plays this game. And when there is only one parent involved due to divorce, death or distraction, then the problem becomes even greater; mom (it usually is mom) has to cover all the bases as well as umpire the game (sorry for all the baseball references, I have been watching the play-offs.)
It may seem simplistic, but here is a formula for dealing with discipline that may help. First, determine the absolutes. What are the laws of the land that must be followed? Too often, we parents have so many rules that the child can't keep track; it seems arbitrary and autocratic (which it might be in fact.) So the kid either gives up or becomes defiant. Guess which is most likely? So the best way we can avoid either keeping track of an ever-changing list or carrying on a familial guerrilla war is to narrow down what we expect.  These should be rules that both parents agree upon. Kids catch on very quickly which parent will tolerate what, if there is this division.
Make these rules as specific and concrete as possible: "clean up your room" is too general. Make your bed. Pick up your clothes. Vacuum regularly. The parent decides. And make it age-appropriate: an elementary-schooler cannot do quite as much as a teen-ager, nor should. Such rules need to be re-evaluated and re-negotiated regularly, so the child takes on responsibility as time goes by (as versus the other, commoner scenario where the parents give up or take on more and more themselves.)
And, in a crucial part of the discussion, what are the penalties if the child does not do these basic tasks? This is tricky, as modern parents tend to have very short attention spans. Being grounded for a week lasts until that night. Losing privileges is even trickier, as they need that computer for homework, and how does reach one's children if they do not have access to their cell-phones? Try to make it appropriate ("let the punishment fit the crime," remember?) and not overly severe. Just because the parent is angry, the child should not come away from a major infringement of the rules feeling treated unfairly.
As I said, this may simplistic and too easy. All I can say is, try it and see!

Virtual Communication

She sees herself as being in constant contact with the world, and in a way, she is right! Whether it be Facebook or texting or e-mail or even the rare telephone call, there is an increasing amount of communication between individuals. Today we can look at the role Twitter played in major political events, or pictures not otherwise available which were sent be cell-phone, and realize that the forms of communication are in flux from moment to moment. It is moving so fast, it is akin to the report of an observer of the world's fastest train: "Here it comes here it is there it goes!"
So what is the issue? People through the new social media are less inhibited, less restricted, more apt to talk about incredibly intimate and formerly private things and therefore the person we are dealing with seems more open, more real, more trustworthy than those we deal with in real life. If anything, because we have the protective shield of the internet or the phone, we tend to be more direct, even ruthless in what we say or the way we say it.
But the result is that we tend to fall into a untrusting stance. We will not go into the separate issue of knowing whether the person we are communicating with is really who he or she claims to be, It is simply that we no longer deal with each other face to face, in person. It is safer to tell someone off on-line than to look them in the eye.
This is why people fall into the traps on line. With internet porn, a man is assured that a woman will never say no. College courses on-line almost guarantee a passing grade. And let us not mention the various gimmicks, products, services that are for sale for such a reasonable price on line (until the next bank statement comes in.) It catches us by our human desire for the quick and easy answer.
It may seem hypocritical for the writer of a blog to criticize the internet, but the point is not the form of communication. It is the people who escape into a protected virtual world where all one has to do with those who upset us is to un-Friend them.

Saying You're Sorry

Apologizing has become a lost art. Too often it has been code for "Okay, so a mistake was made! Can we just drop the whole thing and move on?" Or it has been received as a pro-forma ritual prior to doing the exact same thing all over again. Regardless, there was no sincerity involved or intended; forgiveness was neither expected nor offered.
We are not talking here about the maudlin or melodramatic tears offered by some public figures who have been caught with their hands in some form of cookie jar; those who accept such displays at face value have their own reasons for accepting them without qualm or question. Religious leaders in particular have the script down pat, including the sense of martyrdom when they find they are expected to pay for their own failures. Nor are we talking about the apologias that are brought out by some spokesperson with all the concrete specificity and reality of the fortune in a fortune cookie.
Rather, we are talking about those moments when it is necessary to say "I'm sorry," and mean it. To say it with the hope that the other person says just as sincerely, "I forgive you." Neither of these essential statements should be said too quickly or readily. Apologizing means admitting there is something in fact to be sorry for, something that few seem ready to do. It is someone else's fault, not mine. I didn't really mean it. See my face filled with tears and take pity on me. We do not like to admit that we have in fact screwed up so thoroughly, nor to hand over authority to another for judgment on our behavior ('cause that's what we're doing here, ain't it?)
And it is not really up to us to expect pardon. Apologizing is something we do; forgiveness is something they do. When the other party is ready to let go of the hurt, accept the apology as real, and try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again (although, of course, it will never be the same egg!), then forgiveness becomes a possibility. Sure, it might be in the other's best interests to forgive, but that is not up to us.
There are of course things which are very hard to forgive, even if we don't want to wave around the adjective "impossible." Some wounds are so deep, so severe, that healing takes the rest of a life. And some mistaken actions say so much about very nature of the person that forgiving one incident changes nothing. But this does no abrogate the need for a sincere apology, it merely makes pardon more a divine act.

Anger Mismanagement

What makes you angry? It could be that little, petty pet-peeve or the one hot button that will encourage you to ruin everyone else's day. But more important, what do you do when you get angry? Aye, there's the rub (as the Bard of Avon mighta said.) See, anger is neither right nor wrong in itself; it is a feeling, like love or fear or happiness. And feelings have no judgement value. We are born with feelings, a God-given gift that like all other of God's gifts, depends on what we do with it.
See, if someone steps on my toe, and I say (calmly, of course), "Ouch, you big lummox, yer on my toe!" and they then apologetically get off my toe, no problem. On the other hand, if some steps on my toe, and I say, well the same thing as above, but I also pull out a weapon and remove the offending person that way, then there is a problem! As I said, it is not the feeling of anger that is the issue. Rather, it is what we do about it.
As a society, we don't know what to do with anger. Maybe it is because we have confused anger with rage and its attendant violence. Maybe it is because of our institutionalization of anger; the only people who are supposed to get angry are those authorized to do so, whether police officers or soldiers or politicians (whoops! not them, you say? then why do they...?) Maybe it is because we can't tell the difference between assertion and anger and in a world where more and more people are feeling powerless, anger becomes their way of dealing with that.
We shouldn't confuse the bully with the angry person. Bullies are usually very frightened people who have discovered how to get their way by frightening others. The loud, the abusive, the threatening are seldom angry, but rather good at covering up their own insecurity.
Nor should we conflate the violent with the angry.We hear of those who have been violent as "angry," in part an explanation, in part an excuse. The violent are those who cannot see any other alternative to their problems; when the tool you got is a hammer, all problems become nails.
And most of all, we should not diminish the impact of society: In some contexts, it seem to be in to be angry, angry at, well, everything. There is a sense here of the young child who does not get something, and in the tantrum that ensues, refuses any attempts to make things right (even refusing the exact thing that was wanted to begin with!) These people are angry because others are angry. They march and wave nonsensical signs and demand the impossible because this is what they think everyone else wants.
What makes you angry? In a world where people become angry because some else is driving on the same highway (road rage) or because their political point of view is disagreed with, the first step to handling your anger is to look at what makes you angry, and what you do about it. Don't blame the feeling. Look at the angry person.

Unnatural Disaster

Catastrophe has a way of telling us something about ourselves, even things we may not want to know, or already knew but would have preferred never to acknowledge. Whether we are referring to the recent hurricane or the earthquake before that (earthquake? what earthquake?), or to some personal trauma of whatever magnitude, we can learn much about who we are by the way in which we deal (or don't) with what has happened, as well as the aftermath.
Yes, sometimes we deal with traumatic events by flat-out denial. There's a scene from the classic movie Jumbo, where Jimmy Durante is trying to sneak an elephant down the Main Street of a town. (Don't ask, just see the movie!) Suddenly a police officer appears and says sternly, "Where you going with that elephant?" Durante looks around innocently and then says, "What elephant?" Following revelations of misconduct by any authority figure, even those who would not otherwise defend such suddenly find reasons why (a)it didn't happen (b)it wasn't all that bad (c)we should all just let it go and move on.
Sometimes we deal with trauma  by trying to deal with our anger over what happened and our shame. Well, see, even though we aren't to blame for what happened, we still have this irrational guilt as though we either made it happen or didn't do what might have kept it from happening. Rape or incest survivors often deal with this issue of both anger at the abuser and shame that they were somehow at fault.
And sometimes we deal with awful events by getting very busy. Sure, there are a number of practical things we have to do in the wake of disaster, but we can sometimes look for more to do as a form of distraction, as a way of reclaiming some sort of self-worth, as a way of imposing order on a world which seems suddenly chaotic.
And of course there are those who cannot get past it easily or at all. Soldiers and other military personnel who have been through combat face issues most of us could never handle. My son-in-law, a 20-year Army veteran, has to sit with his back to the wall when he goes out to a restaurant, simply so he can see all around himself and feel less anxious. But Post Traumatic Stress Disorder isn't just limited to vets like him. Other who have risky professions may have to deal with it.
One of the commonest ways of dealing with such experiences is by sharing what we have been through with others who have been through the same, or similar. We talk with one another about how we did during the hurricane. We join groups of others who have traveled the same traumatic path. We seek out a professional to guide us in this suddenly-unfamiliar land. Here we can talk of our anger, our shame. Here we can let go and move on. Here we can learn what catastrophe has to teach us.

Theatrical Ettiquette

Having spent a lot of time in various theaters (on both sides of the footlights), I have come to realize that the average theater audience these days is, uh, below average. The common theater-goer nowadays, influenced by television and movies, has small idea how to behave at a theatrical performance. They must come armed with refreshments (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) which they bought at the refreshment stand in the lobby. (NOTE: most theaters depend on that refreshment stand to make up the difference in the plummeting ticket sales.) They come dressed in well-nigh anything; the days of dressing up to go to the theater are long gone! They begrudge the request to shut off their phones, as they have plans to record the whole show on said phone. And They somehow don't like the seats they are supposed to sit in. No sooner are they seated than they are trying to wheedle a better seat that happens to be empty. Or they stand next to the seat, as if guarding it, and block the aisles by gathering friends, chance acquaintances and total strangers in a group to talk about- nothing!
So here are some elementary etiquette tips for attending a theatrical performance.
(1) ARRIVE ON TIME. Yes, there are provisions for seating a late-comer, but (especially if your seat is in the middle of the row- as it usually is) you are inconveniencing the other members of the audience, and bothering the actors who are trying to get the show started. Yeah, they know what you're up to, even if they can't see you clearly in the dark. And as an addendum, don't hang out in the lobby until curtain time. You're holding back while you have one more drink, and, well, see the above comments on seating late-comers.
(2) IF YOU NEED TO LEAVE DURING THE PERFORMANCE, DO IT AS QUIETLY AND DISCRETELY AS POSSIBLE. That means going out the back exit, not walking down front by the stage where everyone sees you and ignores what's going on in the play in the meantime.
(3) WHEN THE PERFORMANCE IS OVER, SHOW YOUR APPRECIATION IN THE APPROPRIATE MANNER. Clap, whistle, or none of the above. A standing ovation is not automatically expected, unless it is deserved. Either people today are more easily amused by live performances, or they have developed a completely wrong idea as  to what a standing ovation means.
(4) BY ALL MEANS, GO TO AS MUCH LIVE THEATER AS YOU CAN. My remarks should not be a discouragement or inducement to limit yourself to what you can find on television or DVD. there is something about a live performance that cannot be captured by a recording, no matter how good the performer.

Lets Talk

Almost consistently, when couples identify the primary issue they need to work on in marriage therapy, they focus on communication.Granted, they might mean  numerous things by that; one spouse might be overly quiet and the other seldom stops talking (I call this a marriage between a turtle and a skunk); one person is so intimidating and even abusive that the other finds silence to be safer; one spouse is so self-involved and introverted that the other spouse might say or do well-nigh anything and still be unheard. Yes, there are many variations. These few barely scratch the surface.
But they share one thing: they recognize a need for improved communication.
As anyone might guess, the main issue is the nature of the relationship. When a couple has conflicting ideas as to what communication should consist of, that usually proves to be but one of multiple conflicting ideas and expectations.Granted, once a couple has learned basic communication skills, the relationship benefits. BUT: this is not a magic wand. It is a tool to be used to fix the broken parts of the marriage.
(QUICK SIDE COMMENT: All of the above may be true in marriage, but it also applies in each and every serious relationship anyone might have.)
So, how should we talk? Communication,actually, should not just be talking. Listening plays a major role as well. And listening does not consist in just shutting up and waiting for one's turn to say something. Listening means completely focusing on the other and striving to make sure what the other person is saying. (As Arthur Miller once put it, "Make sure you're talking about what you're talking about.") Don't act as if each of you has to defend yourself, jumping in to say "what really happened." Try to hear the other person, not just the words.
And when each does talk, make sure to talk about personal stuff, not what the other person was supposed to have said or done. (Remember that sign in my office: "Never face the facts.") No finger pointing or blaming or garbage dumping. (DEFINITION : "Garbage dumping": Referring back to past actions or words in lieu of dealing with present issues; usually past hurts which should healed by now.)
How long should one continue at this? Despite the old axiom, "Don't let the sun go down on your anger," it is not advisable to stay up and try to work something out when both are tired, increasingly frustrated and likely to simply give up. Set a time and place to continue. Agree not to go back to the discussion until then. In the meantime, work to be as open and caring with one another as possible. In other words, no guerrilla relating.

Does this frighten you?

Yes, there are a few things that frighten me: bees, electricity, dangers to my personal physical well-being. That may not be all, but most other stuff doesn't faze me. I can remember, years agone, one of the times I was in London, coming in the midst of my wanderings to a small cobblestoned alley. It took a bit, but finally my companion convinced me it was not quaint and exotic, but dark, dank and smelly. My romantic side gave in to my practical side, and we missed out on what might have been a marvelous adventure. (Or maybe a mugging.)
No, there is nothing wrong with fear; we are born with it as a primal survival instinct. If it weren't for such human reactions, we would take all kinds of risks. But wait, don't we risk such things regularly: roller-coasters, scary movies, dating? Maybe we want the frightening things to be really under our control; the roller coaster ride ends, as does the movie. The dating, well, okay, bad example, but even there we can know it can  end.
It is the other things we get scared of, the things which seem out of our hands, the things that media and other authority figures push at us and yell BOO! People who are from certain ethnic backgrounds or have a different skin color or speak a different language. People who have been labelled; the mentally ill, the handicapped, those with a particular sexual orientation. It seems to not be enough to feel superior to such people. Now we must make them into our modern culture's version of ghoulies and ghosties and things that go bump in the night.
One could almost excuse some media for their scare tactics ("Is there a child molester living next door to you? Details at 11!") because it makes people tune in, even if there's nothing to be scared about. But we seem to be living in a society that seeks out the ghost story, that accepts the frightening innuendo at one gulp, unable to be reassured that there is not, in fact, a monster under the bed.
We might try to laugh at our fears, whistle past the graveyard, scoff at someone else's  superstitious precautions. But ultimately we are stuck sorting out the fake fears from the real. Yes, as I said above, there may be authentic things we should protect ourselves from. But that dark shape on the floor at night proves to be shoes in the light of day. That person with the different clothing and headgear proves to be delightful and well-spoken. And  walking down that alley proves to be mundane with people's laundry overhead and children running up and down as mothers call them to come for tea.

What's a NASDAQ, daddy?

There are many out there, I would assume, who would be glad to explain to me the terminology and psychology of Wall Street. (For those of you who came in late, "Wall Street" is a general term for all those players, large or small, who accumulate wealth that isn't really there based on promissory notes known as "stocks" or "bonds.) Depending on how many of these are bought or sold, and for how much, the boys and girls playing on Wall Street look to a mysterious number from a mysterious source, called the Dow-Jones average, to measure the economic health of America and beyond. No, I don't know who Dow or Jones are, and why anyone would care about this number they come up with.
But I am more fascinated by the psychology of this group of men and women who, I assume, have some intelligence and self-awareness. But reports of Wall Street reflect either a high-anxiety group which spooks at the slightest shift of the wind, or a group living in its own little world where, when the economy improves for everyone else, they act as though the sky were falling.
This sort of behavior reminds me of a librarian I used to know. She would keep a rigid record of how many books had been borrowed from that library, inasmuch as that is the way libraries measure their productivity. At the same time, she begrudged every book that went out, as though each one were her personal treasure and she suspected the book would not be returned in time or in good shape.
So what I'm suggesting here- and those of you who know anything about this, please let me know- is that these stockbrokers just hate to see others doing well. See, they think there's only a finite amount of money, and when others get their hands on some of it, there's less for them. So when the fecal matter hits the cooling device, stocks go up.
But I'm probably wrong. I hope I am.
ADDENDUM: No, no one has yet told me how full of it I was, although not all the votes have been counted yet.. But I did get one fascinating insight: we are talking here about financial people, bean-counters. bottom-line types. As such, they have two major obsessions: numbers and change. Nothing will scare 'em more than any sort of serious alteration in the status quo. ("Serious" being a subjective but important word.) If that mystical number that Dow-Jones or any other self-appointed guardian at the gates comes up with is too high or too low, chaos ensues.
Because that means serious change is necessary, something between throwing everything out and starting from scratch, versus merely rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. And when faced with something in-between, they freeze up. Two must two must equal four, or we are all doomed! No, twenty-two is not an option.

Compromise

People seem to have lost any understanding of compromise. (For Exhibit A, see: the mess in Washington.) Compromise does not mean giving in so the other side will stop attacking you. Compromise does not mean simply taking pieces from either side and trying to cobble together something that won't be too offensive .
Compromise should be a third option. Too often people will get so adamant that they are unable to look around for an alternative to one way or the other. Sometimes both sides are aware of another possibility sitting there in plain sight, but they get so afraid of losing or the other winning  that they assiduously ignore the elephant in the room.
Compromise means looking beyond the current offerings and that means considering even the most repugnant ideas. (Sacred cows, I am told, make good hamburger!) Only when we can let go of that death grip we have on our point of view will we find new ways of considering things.
This is not meant to suggest it will be easy. It can be very painful, but it should be painful for all concerned. But it would be a different sort of pain from that of compromise by concession, mistaking this for a win-lose situation.

Can You Believe That?

"What is truth?" Pilate asked, but would not stay for an answer.
People today accept some strange things these things, that's for sure! Heard today about an incident in a town near here with a man holding a big sign: "IF YOU WANT TO IMPEACH OBAMA, JOIN US!" There was, reportedly a crowd of people (although whether they were sympathizers, curiosity-seekers or protestors, I can't say.) The point here is not meant to be political (I'm inclined to think everyone has enough responsibility to go around, thank you very much!) Nor do I mean to be some sort of unthinking iconoclast, as though no one should believe in anything! (Some particular sets of doctrines, on the other hand, have to go! Where'd I put my hammer?)
No, the subject for today is belief. Ranging from those deep-set beliefs that give meaning to our lives and direction to our days to the passing trivia that we use as much for entertainment as for guidance, we all have things we hold fast to, things we take so for granted that we never have put them into words until someone confronts us with a contrary. We reach such beliefs from many stances: we are raised that way so we either go that way instinctively or we reject it out of our need for individual autonomy. Or we believe because the people (or one significant person) who matter to us believe that way. Or everyone around us follows a particular path, and we would rather not travel against traffic.Oh, we could go on and on: when the media around us consistently beat a particular drum, when our personal safety and comfort is challenged, when we are forced by our employer or community or authority figures to accept one set of beliefs, we make a decision (conscious or otherwise) to shift our perspective.
The interesting thing is this: the more recent the conversion, the more radical the way that belief is expressed. So many new citizens have a more rabid and rigid attitude toward the USA than many of us who kinda take it all for granted. Maybe it is the New-Love feeling; you know, that combination of euphoria and need to have everyone feel what you feel when you first find love.
But beyond that there is a new attitude about belief: our belief is right, yours is wrong. Which means your belief must be obliterated, and any suggestion that my belief is not perfect is evil! This is especially true regarding religious doctrines, but it shows up of late in politics, in personal relationships, even in such otherwise innocuous areas as baseball teams ('nother subject, 'nother time).
Because you do not believe what I believe, so what? So long as you have something to believe in, isn't that good enough? (And so long as your beliefs don't get in the way of my beliefs, uv cuss.)

How to Cross the Street

NOTE: This may be the first in issues that seem totally mundane and trivial.
People today, especially in larger cities, seem to have forgotten how to go from one side of a street to the other. Please pay attention. This will count toward your final grade.
(1) Seek out an intersection with a stoplight or a cross walk, commonly known as a "zebra." Cars must stop at the stoplight, and should stop at the crosswalk to let pedestrians past. To be sure, some motorists either run red lights or try to rush thru as the light begins to change. In the same fashion, some drivers ignore the crosswalk or see the pedestrians as fair game. But it is far safer than trying to run, scatter-pattern through traffic, or walking nonchalantly out into the street as if defying those automotive occupants of the road. Life has rules, some fair and some not, and we can  choose to abide by them or not. but we must be willing to face the consequences one way or the other
(2) Move across the street as quickly as possible. Some people cannot go as quickly as others, and patience is advisable. Drivers who are in such a rush that they cannot wait for someone crossing a street might do well to examine why they are in such a hurry. Conversely, pedestrians need to be aware of how they are progressing across the street. When one leaves one side at a jog, such a pace should be maintained. Too often people start across in a sort of pseudo-run, get about half way across and slow down to a stroll the rest of the way.

Running Scared

There are times when people become not merely illogical, but downright unrealistic. Unfortunately, the times most likely are when a person has fallen deeply in love, when a person has had a spiritual experience and accepted a rigid set of beliefs, and when someone is badly anxious and scared. Such a person when faced with even the simplest everyday decisions will have difficulty knowing the best choice or in following through with such a choice. Second guesses, outright denials, wildly impractical schemes tend to be the result.
People in such a state are not stupid. In fact, if they stick their heads above the rim of their rut, they can see that what they have committed to makes little sense.
The illogical behavior of people in love we could find cute, even charming. Books, movies, television shows are built around just such foolish antics. The person acting out of fear may seem less endearing, although books and movies give them attention also. But it is the person whose faith, however valid, takes over, this is the one who tends to cause the greatest havoc, whether it be a radical Muslim, ultraconservative Jew or fundamentalist Christian. (Has anyone noticed the absence of radical Buddhists?)
There are people looking to lead this country whose belief systems are not so much about finding meaning for their own lives as forcing everyone else to behave in a certain way. One such has wandered into my sphere by having a husband whose clinic professes to have anti-gay conditioning  Never mind that every reputable professional group has rejected this.Never mind that every study has shown it to be ineffective over the long run, if not ultimately damaging to the supposed clients themselves (there is a disproportionate number of suicides amongst those who were so treated.)
But this form of treatment has an amazing level of acceptance amongst the conservative Christian community. I can always tell when certain (anti-gay) evangelists have come through the area: I get calls from gay and lesbian young people panic-stricken about fitting their sexual orientation into their faith. And I have found, sadly, that telling these men and women that the facts show their sexuality cannot be changed any more that the color of their eyes has no effect. That preacher at that revival made them feel so bad about themselves that they aren't able to be rational about it(see above.)
Yes, they can work to accept themselves, to see all the God-given gifts they have.But when we are surrounded by family and others who condemn a person for being who they are, it is difficult to have the clear-headedness we need.
And it becomes even more difficult when important people in our community tell us we must behave in a particular way. We might condemn some ethnic cultures who dictate how a woman must dress. But do we frown upon groups in our own society who condemn women if they dress in a way we do not approve of? Standards of behavior, however artificial and ephemeral, tell us that men must behave this way and women that way. And when some does not, then what?

And Then What Happened?

When my daughters were young (never mind how long ago that was nevermindnevermind), there were some movies that had to be carefully previewed before screening for family. No, not for excessive violence or sexual content, although that of course. It's just that some stories could have a negative impact on young  sensibilities: when Romeo and Juliet die, when Laurel and Hardy have difficulty getting that piano up the stairs, when that alligator stalked Kermit in the first movie (you remember, during the song Rainbow Connection). Otherwise, there would be tears and cries of "It wasn't supposed to end that way!"
Yes, as they grew older and were able to face the ups and downs of life, they were better able to handle Shakespeare and the Muppets. But we seem to have a sizable portion of the population that have difficulty with things not turning out the way they wanted them to, they don't get what they want, the dream turns out not to be real after all. And stomping collective feet or holding collective breath does not have the results they seem to expect. They try, anyway: a lot of elected representatives seem to be having the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.
Growing up means accepting the fact that things do not always turn out the way we expect. (Exhibit A: Class reunions. That guy or that gal chosen Most Likely to Succeed, uh, didn't.) Not only accepting that fact, but knowing what to do about it.
How many of us still look back to halcyon days when Life Was Good? (For some of us, that was longer ago than others.) And we suspect anything that might smack of today (or even, heaven forfend, tomorrow?) We make vainglorious attempts to turn back that clock, to make it as it never was except in our memory. Of course, that ideal when everyone was doing what we expected- nothing more-is not only unrealistic but also unattainable.
We need to stop trying to change the future into our past, to rewrite history that is yet unwritten. So our political point of view is not accepted by consensus, our faith is not in fact universal, our ethic/racial/sexual orientation is not deferred to as superior? So what?
It does not work to cry, "It shouldn't be that way!" Or to repress any alternative result than the one we want.
So life gave us lemons... Now how does that old saying end?

How to Fight Fair

This is a continuation of sorts from the last, but if that doesn't leap immediately to mind (and why not!) that's okay (deep sigh!)
The paradox today is that we fight more and know less about fighting. We have this concept that conflict of any importance or magnitude requires total victory on our part and total humiliation, if not annihilation, on their part. The possibility that a person might be so secure in a sense of well-being that carving another notch on the gun isn't necessary, that is something alien to our current cultural standards. So when the president recognizes that our on-going wars in Afghanistan are meaningless and even futile, his efforts, however meager, to walk away, raise cries of "Where's the victory?" as though that had even been within reach.
Sorry, I got sidetracked. The subject here isn't fighting on a global scale, but in personal relationships (although the former tends to be the latter writ large.) Too often people come to me because they are in an on-going conflict where nothing is ever resolved and they don't know how to get out of this death spiral. Too often one member of a couple is out-going, vocal and only too ready to express feelings. The other person is quiet, withdrawn, even stoic. Oh, you know these people, do you?
So the script begins with some spark large or small that sets off an angry exposition of the issue on the part of Person No. 1. The response from Person No 2: uh, Person No. 2, are you there? No, going and watching television or going on a computer or going out drinking does not count as a response. In fact, it just causes an escalation with Person No. 1, who assumes that stating the case calmly and clearly (well, you know what I mean) hasn't worked, so repeat as often and as loudly as necessary. This causes further withdrawal and resentment by Person No. 2. Which in turn causes Person No. 1 to...well, you get the idea.
At this point there is a need for someone (discrete cough) to step in, take both people by their hands and show them how to fight.
No, we cannot pretend that there will never be some form of conflict. We can ignore the issues until things get to the point where both sides have dug in and things are too broke to fix. We can assume that peace and quiet is the same as peace. We can throw the whole out, baby, bathwater and all. We can spend the rest of our lives together being what I call "married singles," where each just goes on about their separate lives sharing a mailing address, a name and maybe the same bed, and nothing else.
So let me give you the Rules.
First, find a time and place where there will be no distractions or interruptions. Whether it be when other family is out of the house, or in bed, or chained in the basement (hey! I don't judge your parenting skills, okay?) make sure that neither is so preoccupied or giving so much mental energy to anyone outside the room. Turn off the cell phone! That's very important. (There would have been a time when you would have been told to take the phone off the hook, but plus ca change...) Of all modern noises, one of the most difficult to ignore is a phone. Also, turn off the IPod, the computer, the television. It will be there when you get done.
Second, know what you are fighting about. Make sure both of you are dealing with the same issue. In fact, make sure you know what the issue is. Right at the start, identify that issue, as clearly and concretely as possible. Otherwise, as Arthur Miller put it in one of his plays, you may not be fighting about what you're fighting about.
Then, stick to that subject. There will be other issues that come up, but bookmark them for future and stay on target. This will be tough, as there will be old stuff going way back that seem just too important (and importunate) to ignore, especially if one or the other  of you feels defensive and looks for anything to divert the argument.
Third, no hitting below the belt. In any relationship, each person knows the vulnerable spots in the other, and in the flush of combat, such chinks in the armor seem too hard to ignore. But calling on such just escalates the conflict and diminishes the discussion. Well, figure it out yourself: the person you are supposed to trust the most has just used that trust against you. Whaddya gonna do? Right.
And a side bar on this rule. Don't hit below the belt but don't wear the belt around your neck. We can rule so much out-of-bounds that nothing can be dealt with. Or one person dismisses the issue as no longer valid: it took place just long enough ago, or the person  had changed (no evidence of change, but never mind)or some sort of armistice had been declared on this subject. "I've moved on, what haven't you?"
Finally, don't expect a quick or easy resolution. It is all too easy once past that first anger to want to settle this quickly. Sure, some sort of peace treaty is advisable, but did you know how many wars are still unsettled. from conflicts with tribes of Native Americans to the Korean War; just cease-fires. Some questions, as the poet Rainer Maria Rilke put it, don't have answers; we just have to live the questions. In relationships, not all issues are settled the way they are on television- in half an hour to an hour, with time out for messages from our sponsor. Sometimes we have to accept each other, differences and all, and just learn to love the imperfection in another as we learn to love the imperfection in ourselves

Bully

Like most of you, I was a quiet little kid. (I know, I know, hard to believe!) Not much good at sports, middle of the class academically, shy around the opposite sex. Not until high school was I able to assert myself, gradually gradually ever so gradually.
Which meant that I was the natural prey for the school bullies.
No, I didn't suffer some of the physical humiliations that many do, but I still had to deal with the name-calling, the insults, the hostility, the exclusion from the In Crowd. And actually such things had more effect than any threats to my physical well-being.
It is only with age and maturity (ahem!) that I have come to have empathy for those bullies. I know now that many of them had their own insecurities, their own need to control another to make up for their own problems. I even (gag, choke, gasp!) forgive them. What's more, I forgive those adults, teachers and others, who stood by and did nothing as this bullying went on.
 But nowadays, bully-prevention is a big deal. Possibly because of all those young nerds like me who were bullied, now grown and parents or grandparents ourselves, there is more sensitivity to the problem, and more programs to deal with it. The very potential for violence has, at one and the same time, been identified and addressed, as well as escalated (can you say Columbine?)
Of course, there is another whole realm for bullying: on-line. With the confidentiality of the internet, a person can cyber-bully, cyber-stalk another person with little likelihood of restriction or retaliation.
The question, even in the face of such changes, remains the same: what should be done? It is easy to suggest that the delete button is a good choice in these circumstances. The real issue, however, lies not in the bully, who may be hard to get to, but in the person being bullied. What resources does such a person have? Friends who can reassure that the calumny is false or at least not valid. In a pinch, legal measures. But beyond such external measures, there is a need to claim our inner worth.
Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself without your cooperation. It is that inner doubt that the bully counts on. Bullies are (as I suggested above) not very secure people; that's why they over- compensate in trying to make others feel bad. They seem to know instinctively who they can dominate or intimidate. Or maybe they do it with everyone, and they find their victims in the ones who don't reject their games.
This does not mean that the victims are to blame for what happens. It does mean that they are responsible for what they do next.

Family Rules

Every family has its own (usually unspoken) rules and expectations: Everyone gets up more or less at the same time, goes off to whatever activity (job, school, housework) they have taken on, and even if few families gather around a dinner table, bedtimes is usually the same. (What?! You mean your family didn't? I'm shocked, shocked!) We could spend much time compiling all the things that members of your family were expected to do. But I could guess with some certainty that members of any dysfunctional family had very similar rules, even though no one ever put them into words:
(1) Don't think
(2) Don't talk
(3) Don't feel.
Let me explain.
(1) Don't think.
Because, if you took a moment to think about your situation, you'd quickly realize that most of the time, things didn't make sense. In fact, things were pretty chaotic. What's more, everyone was expected to ignore that dead elephant in the middle of the living room. Whatever thinking took place went to coming up with rational-sounding explanations for what no one wanted to accept had happened (that's why they're called rationalizations.)
And if someone did dare to ask a question regarding this craziness, they were reprimanded or even punished. They were stigmatized as crazy themselves, or as troublemakers, or as cry-babies (mad, bad or sad in other words.) They may have even been told they should just keep quiet. Which brings us to the next Rule of Dysfunctional Families:
(2) Don't talk
In a society that idealizes personal privacy, it does not seem bad to have a family rule about keeping family affairs private. But we are going farther than that. Too often when someone is being abused by another family member, or someone in the family needs medical or psychological or legal help, the word goes forth: don't tell anyone!
So if a child has been abused, that child might grow to adulthood before daring to say anything about what happened. If a teacher asks about suspicious bruises, the child is quick to come up with any excuses possible ("I fell off my bike.") If police show up to investigate a spouse beating, too often the person who leaps first to the defense of the abuser is... right!
Sometimes this is because the abuser has told the victim, "Don't you tell anyone!" Sometimes it is because the others in the family were so flagrant in their disbelief that the victim gives up in futility. Sometimes, alas, the child is so young that the memory is too vague, or speaking for oneself is a moot point. The victim simply consigns herself to feeling emotionally numb in an important part of life. Which brings us to the next Rule of Dysfunctional Families:
(3) Don't feel
When the first feeling one can identify is painful, all feelings get shut down. Sure, we learn to act out certain feelings (anger especially), but letting ourselves feel vulnerable and caring is out of the question! So we develop a lack of trust toward others; our relationship are shallow, exploitative or explosive.
When the first people we should care about prove unreliable, untrustworthy or even uncaring, we learn not to put ourselves in that sort of position again. Or, conversely, we jump into relationship after relationship with anyone who makes a pretense of caring; when you don't know the Real Thing, your natural need for love grabs onto any facsimile.
Of course, showing feelings happens anyway. We cannot help it. But since we have accumulated a backlog of expressed feelings, they all tend to come tumbling out in a confusing and frightening way. That why it helps to have a professional (ahem!) at hand to provide a safe environment.

Reverse Robin Hood

This is by request. The person who asked me to talk about this was somewhat distraught; she was convinced that disaster was imminent. Understandably so, as she depends on certain federal and state programs for her health and well-being.
The current political situation regarding Medicare and Medicaid is hard to understand. It is being made more abstruse because of a whole group who seem to working from a position that has more to do with pandering to their political base, a place where theory and emotion play as much a part as the practical and reasonable. They have accepted a particular set of ideals (if that is quite the right word for such a collection of negatives) that they cannot compromise. and any other set of standards is seen as not merely wrong, but repugnant and even evil.
On the one hand, one can only applaud such a commitment to one's beliefs. Too often, our world has only grasped for what worked, settling for the the feasible more than the acceptable. If it made money, if it kept the crowds quiet, if it appealed to the people in power, that would be the status quo. But this group has a mirror-image approach. By this way of looking at things, the poor, the needy, the elderly and disabled, were not only not worthy of help, but a drag on the relentless progress of the younger generation. Scrooge-like, they dismissed such people with the wish that they should simply leave them alone so they might move forward, might focus on that bottom line. Even more, they would take what few resources the lower classes might have and give them to those they saw as deserving: the upper income population who might fritter away the meager resources of the needy in whatever brief time.
They have their alternatives to Medicare and Medicaid, albeit quite shallow and facile. One can applaud the implied concept of giving more responsibility for medical expenses to those receiving that care. The trouble lies in two areas: First, the people receiving the help have little experience dealing with the complications of medical finance, nor would they have any back-up to compensate for expenses not otherwise covered.  Second, the medical professionals already have a history (in some small instances) of fraud and/or incompetence. Take away the (sometimes onerous) oversight of federal/state officials, and what is to check  the clinicians who might realize how little they are getting out of this already, and now would look for any way in which services could be trimmed and charges increased?
This does not address the very real concerns of those who fear losing the help they receive now, however sparse the number of doctors, however questionable the quality of the care. When someone fears losing everything, it does not comfort to be told, well, not quite everything! But the debate has become black-and-white. This is not a discussion of how Medicaid and Medicare might be improved, but of how it might be eliminated altogether and some doppelganger put in its place.

Quick and Easy

Someone once concluded a lengthy epistle, "Sorry for the long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one."
Which makes one wonder at the amount of thought and effort being put into the various shorter forms of communication so predominant today (texting, twittering, posting et al).
We live in a society whose two greatest virtues are speed and convenience. We want what we want, and we want it now. Even more, we want it with minimum effort or difficulty on our part. Someone recently suggested that the remote was central to our world, and people would rise up in fury if it were taken away. As a symbol, there is little better. I measure out my days in coffee spoons, and an indication of my great maturity is that I can remember when one had to get up, go to the television set, and change the channels by hand! But today we are so accustomed to double-clicking the mouse and getting what we seek almost instantaneously. We communicate (in the form of our choice) by e-mail not letter. We cook our meals by microwave. We travel by car or plane quickly, and require entertainment whilst we travel to distract us from how long it takes. We don't even need to go anywhere to shop: We order on line and then wait impatiently for the snailmail to deliver our order.
So it should be no surprise that people seeking counseling expect the same quick service. True, much of it comes from the medical model where the right pill or the right treatment is all that is necessary. Most insurance companies won't pay for more anyway. And there are many forms of psychotherapy that cater to exactly this expectation. The concept that people might need more care and consideration does not enter into this equation.
Okay, so we may be past the era when people would spend days and days and days in therapy. But we are not past the reality that most of us might take a long time to change, anyway. No, sir, that includes even those who improve their lives by sheer denial. And yes, madam, that includes those who make minor cosmetic changes and assume that all can be solved by rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.
We aren't talking here about those who "recover" by a flight to health, a sudden panicky determination that everything is all right after all. Nor are we talking about those who face obstacles not of their own making (family, job, legal problems).
So when someone who has been previously cooperative and even has been making great strides precipitously terminates or simply begins missing appointments, we have gotten beyond the earlier, easier stages of therapy and hit the area which will not be comfortable and will seem very slow, well-nigh endless. But this is where the real work lies. And it is hard work. But it is the only form of therapy which makes the changes necessary.

Speak Up!

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it! -Voltaire
(Okay maybe he didn't say that exactly but he did say somethin' sorta kinda like it- and I will defend to the death...)
Full disclosure time: Communication plays a big part in what I do. As a therapist, I help people find their own voices so they can say to others, to themselves, what they've always needed to say. As a pastor, I deal with the Word of God. And as a college professor, I teach young people how to communicate with the world around them. (As a actor manque I am learning how to interact with the words of the playwright and the actions of the others on stage.)
But sometimes we seem to be willing to let anyone say anything, and to take each just seriously as any other. I realize how hypocritical it seems for a blogger like me to look down upon others, and also to ignore the possibility that what is drivel to one person (me, for instance) might seem words of wisdom to someone else (uh, you, maybe?) (After all, somebody is watching Fox News.)
The issue, however, is that we seem willing to give airtime and attention to anyone saying whatever. That First Amendment aficionado in me would be willing to let anyone who wants to get up, as they do on Hyde Park Corner in London, and proclaim whatever they wish to whoever might listen (or no one, as the case sometimes is) But there is another part of me that rues the fact that we are confusing communication with vocalization.
Part of the problem lies, frankly, in the vast amount of mass media we have today. Tweets, blogs, Facebook, all are insatiable monsters calling for more and more input, however trivial or ephemeral. We do not censor ourselves; some things in our lives do not need to be shared with the universe, or, if at all, with only our closest and most trustworthy.
One of my favorite radio personalities, Colin McEnroe, recently had a show where he gave up the entire hour to a small group promoting a paranoid conspiracy theory about what really happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11. When I sent him an e-mail expressing my dismay that he had wasted airtime (and his own credibility) on such a topic, he responded very defensively and even became hostile toward me personally when I tried to suggest that he had fallen prey to the tabloidization of our society.
If someone chooses to proclaim gibberish, no matter how well-stated or glossily presented, they are not only welcome to do so, they are entitled to do so. But I not only have no need to listen, I also have to point out to others that what they are enrapt with is really well-stated and glossily presented nonsense.

Over the End of the World

It was a tough choice, but the topic was just sitting there, so...
First, let's check: is everybody here? Anyone taken up into the heavens this last Saturday?  No, this will not be another of those condescending, snarky comments about those poor deluded folk who blindly followed that radio evangelist off the edge of this ontological cliff, nor a defiant defense of the right to be wrong, even for the people that are wrong at the top of their lungs. Rather, let us discuss the increasing presence of those who propound the bizarre and the people who buy into it. This is not just about a misguided person who has his problems with math and the right dates. This is about people who believe some really weird stuff, people who are in a place where being factual and reasonable with them makes no difference. The president of the United States is a covert alien socialist terrorist. That sort of thing.
This used to be restricted to the supermarket tabloids, or to late-night talk shows, where intricate conspiracies were the dish of the day. Sure, there have always been paranoid fantasies that were pushed by people for their own reasons. (The moon landing didn't happen; it was staged...Flying Saucers have been captured and held in secret...The Twin Towers were deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by the American government...Kennedy was assassinated by government agents in conjunction with the Mafia.) But now the newsmedia seems to consider such as legitimate. Which raises what is really the question: are people really more gullible/accepting of anything/more paranoid or are the various media more desperate to fill space/just giving the public what they seem to want/trying to sell their own political point of view?
Of course, people have always shown a readiness to believe that can be either inspiring or frightening, depending on your point of view. Some superstitions are innocuous (don't get me started on the taboos of the theater!) Some border on the obsessive (what we believe gives way to what we are allowed to do or not do.) And some come from our human need to feel in control (ironically at the same time as we concede control to an arbitrary ritual.)
Let us stay on message: are people really more prone to accept even the most arcane with little or no question, or are we simply more aware of the cavorting minority that do? And who are we to make such distinctions? My deep and sincere faith might be unacceptable to someone else, just as their off-the-wall views would seem strange to me.
No answers here. But if you have any suggestions, I would be glad to consider how such a sensible person could come up with such ideas.

Who's Responsible?

We have become a society of victims. Powerless, unknowing, forever vulnerable victims,  never responsible for the awful things which happen around us and to us. The world around us becomes too complex, too abstruse, too difficult. Yet we are told (sometimes even by ourselves) that everything is our fault. So we go through life with this conflicted combination of guilt and martyrdom, resentful even of those who would help, as though the wagon train were to open fire on the cavalry riding to its rescue.
There are groups in our political landscape who seek to reinforce their version of this issue of responsibility for their particular political agenda, not out of concern for the various groups in question. At one and the same time, we are told that we should solve all problems merely by a healthy tug on our bootstraps yet put down if we try to show any initiative in the face of social restrictions. A woman is expected to overcome gender limits, a person of color the pigment of the skin, a low-income person the financial hurdles, this or that ethnic person the problems of learning a different language, a different cultural mindset, different food and clothing.
But this does not mean we should not assume our own sense of responsibility. I can remember a sign in the office of one of the agencies I have been affiliated with: "You may not realize that a lack of preparation on your part should not constitute a crisis on my part." The point here is knowing what we can do- and do it!

Risky Behavior

Just routine. The usual. Same old same old. The humdrum pattern of existence. Get up at the same time every day. Same breakfast. Take the same route to the same job. Deal with the same tasks with the same people. Leave work at the same time. Same dinner. Watch the same TV shows. Go to bed at the same hour. Maybe even have the same dreams every night!
Some people count on such regular patterns. Not that they are dull or uncreative people, unable to even peak over the rim of their rut; rather they find a kind of security in such routine. They may have grown up in just such a structured and predictable a world, neither being able to afford nor to risk a step off the beaten track. Or they came from a chaotic and scary family where everyone walked lightly out of dread of what might happen, neither able to speak openly nor able to act honestly for fear of the consequences.
Yes, there are those whose regular days are anything but regular. Not that they seek out the unstructured life, nor that they have such poor boundaries that they shift, weathervane-like, with every gust of anyone else's  tornado. Nor are we talking about those who only find a life worthwhile if it is lived on the edge. Rather, it is those who persist in wringing from life every bit possible.
Someone once wrote in an obituary: "He was born a man and died a grocer." There are many people who let the opportunities pass. "Risk" is not a word in their vocabulary; nor can they see the possibility of variation in their routine. Such openness need not be either reckless nor random. But too many people have confused familiarity with felicity, thinking fulfillment springs from nothing more than doing the same thing over and over and over.
If a person would change, and even knows what change to make, yet holds back not out of realistic consideration but out of anxiety for facing the unfamiliar, the moment might come when that train has left, that time has passed and the only thing left is regret. As the saying goes, there are many who end up living lives of quiet desperation. Too many climb to the top-most diving board, go out to the end of the board, gaze down...and then climb back down without jumping..

Minority Report

In Quaker proceedings, all decisions are done not by vote, but by "consensus."  That means that everyone agrees on the decision. There cannot be anyone who does not concur, or who has not participated in some way, shape, or form. Granted, there are flaws in such a way of functioning (the pressure just to go along with the crowd might be intense) but it has this: everyone is given equal standing and authority. Each person is expected to speak up, and each person listens to the rest.
We as a society might learn much from the Society of Friends (aside from their total commitment to peace.) Our American belief in acceptance of all peoples, including minorities, has been (as Shakespeare would have put it) honored primarily in the breech. Or rather, we have given certain minorities pride of place. We pay attention to those on the extremes of society, who ironically seem to want little to do with that society, rather than those seeking to make such a society better. (Fill in the political group of your choice here.)
Granted, those who deal with a world they cannot control by acting out in self-destructive ways need attention and care. (That's what I'm here for, ya know!) But we need not arrange our lives and the lives of others around the demands of those who do not always know just what it is they want. And it is especially tragic when the dysfunctional few, the minority, begin to set the agenda for everyone else.
Our challenge, then, is balancing the love and care necessary for the neediest with the lives of the rest of society. Some would resolve the issue by simply turning their backs on the neediest, not merely ignoring them but abusing them for being unable to single-handedly overcome prejudice and ignorance and social barriers. Others would become enablers of those who should be able to take care of themselves, those whose primary disability is a resistance to making hard choices.
Ultimately of course, we are each of us a minority. There is no one else in this world exactly like you. But we are not alone in this wide world. And only so far as we find common ground with others might we have a place to stand. That's something we all can agree upon.

Say What?

At my favorite coffee shop (which will go unnamed because they ain't paid for the ad but it rhymes with charbucks) there is this BIG poster for one of the things they offer: "STUFFED PRETZEL WITH SODA." And I have asked the obvious: however did they get the soda in there? My suggestions were not appreciated for some reason; but after all, don;t they want to communicate?
In a time which takes great pride in the various forms of communication (telephone, television, texting, podcasting and, yes, internet to name a few) why have we become so sloppy at basic communication skills? Often when couples come to me for help, one of the central issues is communication; they cannot talk to one another without a shouting match if not long periods of silence. And this type of noncommunication does not take into consideration the non-verbal forms of connecting with one another (fill in your own ideas here.)
Granted, verbal communication is over-rated. As that Hollywood producer Sam Goldwyn once said, "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on." Many people think that if they simply say something, promise anything, that will solve everything. True, nothing will actually change, but, gee, didn't they say they would get around to doing something? But the non-verbal may be no better. Many couples become sexually intimate before they really know each other.  And, despite what movies seem to imply, relationships are not cured of all problems by a passionate kiss. Too often I have seen couples where the sex has become blase, and they look beyond that and realize that, out of bed, they don't really like each other.
Communication is a multi-step process that begins with learning to listen and continues on to making sure the other has heard what was, in fact, said. It involves accepting the other person even when the two of you disagree. It means that talking louder will not guarantee that what you are saying will be heard (Exhibit A: "I've told you kids a million times..." at the top of your voice.) It means setting aside a time and place where you are not likely to be interrupted or distracted and talking with one another on the issue at hand (and only that issue!) until some sort of resolution has been reached (even if it is little more than the choice not to try to change each other any more in this area.)
Communication can take many forms. And there are just as many signals that communication is not happening. Lack of coherent response. Over-reaction. Sudden change of subject. Garbage-dumping (which consists of sudden venting of all the things that annoyed, disturbed or confused back thru the eons of time.) No response at all. And it can be tricky to identify that breakdown in dialog.
This does not mean total surrender on communication, nor taking pride when a relationship persists in spite of this major lacunae. People need to keep trying. One of the major accomplishments in life is knowing that others hear what you are saying, and respond.

Multiple Choice

Even before I met with the search committee, one of the members warned me, "He only wants yes or no answers." They had met with another candidate who kept qualifying or explaining, and that was not acceptable to this one committee member. Sure enough, very early on in the interview, he faced me with questions that he obviously saw as yes-or-no questions.
"Do you believe in God?"
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ?"
"Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?"
Looking back now, I can understand his stance; he had neither the sophistication nor the expertise to enter into some kind of theological debate parsing the finer points of theosophy. Explaining would not clarify; it would confuse. I said yes to each question, then added to the other committee members, "I could explain what I mean by each of these if you want."
It was many years ago that happened (and yes, they did call me as pastor.) Since then, I have dealt with others who sought such yes-or-no answers, who approached life at the most basic levels and rejected any attempt to suggest that there might be more than that. As a therapist, I meet people who come with issues that, however complex, they expect solutions right away, solutions which require little effort and less thought.
The difficulty is, of course, that many questions have more than one answer (if they have an answer at all.) Human beings are wonderfully complex, and we seek to fit others into our procrustean bed at our peril. There have been many instances when the choices of boxes to be checked didn't match with the reality of a particular person. The most vivid example, of course, was apartheid, where even a drop of blood from an African background meant consignment to abasement. And we Americans struggle with the heritage of a president that doesn't fit into our limited options.
But there are less obvious instances: sexual orientation, spiritual commitment, ethnic heritage. Despite our attempts to cling to stereotypes, many people from such groups just will not fit into our expectations. (What does an Arab look like? A homosexual? A person from this or that religious group?) And in a world that is constantly in motion, it is doubtful that things will become fixed any time soon.
This does not mean that nothing can be sure in our world Each of us can know and celebrate who we are. But we must hold back from pigeon-holing others based on our own need to know.

Community

One of the (many) human tensions is between individual autonomy and community, between being a separate person responsible for oneself and being part of something larger. We waver back and forth between the John Wayne who was the lone cowboy out in the Old West and the John Wayne who joined with others to fight for what was right. Taken too far in one direction, we hold back from any relationship and view the world with suspicion; in the other direction, we are mindless cogs in the great machine. Some would view both these options with disdain. As Groucho Marx once said, "I don't want to join any group that would have someone like me as a member."
Of course, the dichotomy (like all such) is false; we are part of a community even while we celebrate our individuality. Even the iconoclast has an ideal to follow. Even the atheist has something to believe in. Even the skeptic must accept a place on which to stand.
Yes, I belong to a community. It is located in Scotland, and was started by a Church of Scotland minister named George MacLeod in 1938. It is known as the Iona Community, describing itself as a "dispersed Christian ecumenical community working for peace and justice, rebuilding of community and the renewal of worship." The first time I set foot on that tiny island off the west coast of Scotland, I knew it as my spiritual home.
Of course, it could be that the current resistance to community is because we have such difficulty dealing with balancing different ways of looking at the world. We'd rather go our own way (and expect everyone else to go our way as well) than deal with different points of view. Or we'd rather fall into the lockstep approach to community that asks nothing more of us than following the herd. (Of course, those adamant individualists among us can be just as conformist in their own ways. Are you listening, Ayn Rand?)
This is not a plea to join this or that group, nor an apologia for the life of a hermit. It is a recognition that we need to balance these diverse aspects of life. It is not easy, sometimes feeling like going down a rapids with one foot each in two separate canoes. And in a world that has become more and more intolerant of ambivalence, we will face a great deal of hostility.

Live the Questions

The poet Rainer Maria Rilke once advised a young would-be poet:
     "Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart. Try to love the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers which cannot be given because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant dqay into the answers."
We today, in our persistent insecurity, want answers, and we want them now! We do not want to hear that some questions have no answers, at least not now. So we are ready to accept any answer, regardless of accuracy, truth or common sense. Conspiracy theories are just as common as ever, but now they are being brought into the mainstream. (Over 50 percent of all Republicans believe President Obama was not born in this country.)
Some of this intolerance of the uncertain is human nature; we will put up with much, but we have difficulty accepting not knowing. And where we do not or cannot know, we grab anything which seems acceptable to our own experience/predisposition. Have a problem understanding this or that social issue? Cut the Gordian knot by explaining that it is all a massive conspiracy that keeps people in the dark. That way, we do not have to face our own limitations, or the fact that we do not have all the facts.
To be sure, there are influential people/ institutions/ supposed sources of information (are you listening, Fox News?) that deliberately exacerbate people's fears to promote their own agenda. But such are not conspiracies. Some may be nothing more than incompetent. Some may be attempts to stand on the seashore and prevent the tide from coming in. And some, yes, are stirring the pot to confuse and dismay.
Does all this imply that there are no answers, or at least no obvious ones? That, alas, is the way many respond when their own easy answer of choice does not come up as the default setting of life. We want answers, and we want them now! Of course, there will be times when solutions are withheld by unforeseen and unnecessary obstacles. But a child does not become an adult with all of the abilities and wisdom of an adult just because that child wants it. The first shoot of a plant does not grow to its full height no matter how much we might wish it so.

Making Changes

A photo on line of one of the protesters at a recent (unnamed) political rally showed an over-weight, slovenly young man with a sign that was, frankly, scary. It read, "Oppose Change," only the C had been made over into a Hammer-and-Sickle symbol. He was giving  the camera a vacuous grin. I had two immediate reactions: (1)Here was someone who was facing inevitable disappointment, as change in some form or other is inevitable. (After all, wasn't it the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who observed that no one can put their foot into the same river twice?) (2) We as a society have taken a human tendency- resistance to change- and held it up as a virtue.
We as a species do not like change. I have often pointed out that we accept change only when the pain of changing becomes less than the pain of staying the way we are.  (Odiorne's Law- patent pending) But the reality is that change happens whether we like it or not. The decision we must make is whether the change will be what we want.If we assume a passive stance, we have no idea and  no say as to the result. As the Zen saying goes, if you don't decide where you want to go,you will up someplace else.
As I said, change happens- anyway! Even our faith gets involved. We might talk of worshiping a God Who is the same, yesterday, tomorrow and always. But this is also a God Who constantly makes all things new. Each dawn brings a new day, completely distinct from the others before or those to come.
Of course, some deliberate changes end up the wrong ones anyway. We make choices that we wish we had not. There are no guarantees.But that does not get us off the hook We still must deal with the changes.That's what's called living.

Never Face the Facts

That's what the sign says, hanging in my office: NEVER FACE THE FACTS. This is not meant as an affirmation of massive denial. Rather, it is an attempt to point people in the right direction.
We have a social obsession with making sure that our own point of view is supported by scientific, objective reality. I recently overheard a person who was telling everyone about some convoluted bizarre conspiracy theory (did you know that the 9/11 tragedies were caused by a secret U.S. government plot? neither did I) that this off-the-wall idea had been tested by several scientific groups. Now that I think of it, he didn't say what the results of those tests were...
The only real fact is that we have a hard time determining what the facts are. Back in 1997, Elizabeth Loftus and her students carried out more than 200 experiments to discover the etiology and prevalence of false memories, how they resemble real memories, and how to tell the difference. In these experiments, false memories were created in participants, using a variety of conditions. The result was called "imagination inflation." In another instance, two psychologists were able to so confuse participants they actually signed confessions for damage to a computer that never happened.
But even more than the inevitable subjectivity we face, there is the issue that we use "facts" as a way to avoid dealing with feelings. If we can distract the discussion to determining exactly who, where, when and how, we don't have to confront our feelings about the what. And sometimes these debates about factual details become talking more and more about less and less, whittling nothing down to a fine point.
But sometimes we need to give up this quest for factual certainty. Sure, if we are working in the sphere of law, which must decide by its very nature what is real and what is unreal, or if we are building a building and must dwell in the very embodiment of the material, it would be confusing at best to derogate factual details. The fact is, we live in a world that is factually slippery. Ask any police officer, and you will learn the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
Does that mean that we must resign ourselves to a world without certainty? It sounds like a nightmare, where nothing is solid. The point, however, is not to consign ourselves to trying to catch a black cat in a dark room (and not knowing for sure there is a cat there to begin with.) The point is to recognize the importance of our inner reality as much as the world around us. The spiritual, emotional, psychological reality is not bound by facts, but it has just as much importance.

Winning

Never mind what that possibly (probably?) disturbed television star may say, "winning" is not worthwhile. Regardless of what he may mean by that, which seems to have something to do with unrestrained self-gratification and attention, we have fallen into a mistaken notion that, as the sports media would tell us, winning isn't everything- it's the only thing!
We have confused capitalism with competition, and assumed that material accumulation equals self- worth. One misguided state representative in my ancestral state even went so far as to advocate that the weak, the physically or mentally disabled, the less-than-perfect, should be shoved off to our very own gulag. Regardless of how we heed our faith's dictums on caring for those in need, the urge of our society to turn our backs on those who do not have it as good as some is greater than ever before in the wake of an economy that has left more and more in need and  fewer and fewer with the willingness to help.
So what do I say to the low-income client in my office who is in anguish over the possibility (probability?) that her state aid might be cut, leaving her without a place to live? Or to the client who can only get the mental/physical help necessary through Medicaid or Medicare? Especially when others seem all too ready to shrug their shoulders and walk away, consoled with the rationale that government has saved a few dollars to spend on its most recent war?

Changes: No Such Thing As Normal

They want to be "normal." By which they mean, well, they aren't sure what they mean. Maybe like everyone else. No one else has problems. At least not problems like theirs. The image of the perfect, happy family they see on television haunts them like some unattainable dream. And everyone's friends are living "normal" lives.
The flaws we see writ large in our hearts do not seem to be valid for others. We are not as good-looking, smart, quick-witted, athletic or caring as someone else. We are more aware of our weaknesses than our strengths, anyway. What we are good at, that does not matter. It is the things we cannot do, don't know how to do that reinforce our own sense of not-good-enough.
Can we acknowledge that there is no such thing as "normal"? Actually, the only place "normal" shows up in God's creation is a setting on a washer or dryer. We cling to this standard not because it is a helpful or realistic goal, but because it keeps us from coming to terms with who/what/where we are right here and right now. If we could give up this meaningless quest for meaning and learn to find our meaning in the now, we would save ourselves a lot of suffering and useless effort.

Looking for Help

People do not ask for help. There is this myth of the self-sufficient person who doesn't ask, doesn't need help. In fact, there has developed a stigma against those in society whose bootstraps were not enough. At the same time, there is an expectation that everyone will cooperate with certain social expectations, however unattainable, however unrealistic.
That is when someone shows up in my office, anxious and overwhelmed. The inability to adhere to someone else's expectations has become too much, and the result is not to review these expectations to see if they fit, but to feel inadequate and powerless. Some people respond to such pressures by rebelling, defying their own demons in some self-destructive way with the hope that they will escape. Some respond by ignoring the obvious, tiptoeing around the dead elephant in the middle of the room. Some blame everyone and everything but themselves.
That should be the moment when they reach out, turn to trusted friends and family, even look in the Yellow Pages. And sometimes people do.
But we have fallen prey to the medical model where we expect the problem to be solved in one quick, easy and obvious session. And, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, the quick, easy and obvious answer tends to be wrong.
It is all right to admit that we are in need of help. Despite that wounded child inside so many that still cries for a parent to accept them, we are worthwhile. And sometimes we need a person who can help us to realize this