Random Thoughts, Various Things

Here are some miscellaneous things I’ve been thinking about—

Politics.  I pay as little attention as possible to the political campaigns, but from the snippets I pick up Rick Santorum is a nut case. As The Washington Post said recently, Santorum may appeal to paranoid religious conservatives, but attacks on JFK, apocalyptic talk of a “war on people of faith,” and calling it snobbery to go to college sound crazy to most of us. Zealotry won’t gain the votes of moderates and independents, and it’s they who choose presidents.

As for Mitt Romney, this gaffe-prone stuffed shirt boasts that his wife drives two Cadillacs, has friends who are NASCAR team owners (not mere fans), and thinks $10,000 is a friendly wager. With such credentials he won’t attract many working-class Americans.

The President should just sit back and let the Republicans commit unforced errors and disqualify themselves.

A side note.  This primary campaign foolishness is a direct result of switching over to the popular election of convention delegates. Yeah, sure, pure democracy is a great theory. But it requires a well-informed electorate, which we clearly don’t have given the state of the news media today. (Thank you, Roger Ailes!) Were we really any worse off when candidates were chosen by party bosses in smoke-filled rooms?

Health policy.  Didja happen to notice that the Affordable Care Act (the health reform legislation that will be two years old later this month) has eliminated lifetime limits on insurance coverage for more than 105 million Americans? No? Well you probably missed that tidbit because facts and thoughtful analysis aren’t entertaining enough to make the so-called “news” these days. For those who missed it, here’s the full meal deal…

Previously, lifetime caps meant that insurance coverage could run out just when you need it most (e.g., due to a serious accident or illness). But under the ACA, health plans renewed on or after Sept. 23, 2010 cannot have lifetime limits, and millions of Americans were in such plans previously. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey showed that 59% of all workers who had employer-based health insurance had some lifetime limit in 2009, and a study by the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans showed that nine out of ten people who bought individual coverage also had a lifetime limit. When you run the numbers, you realize that 70 million people in large employer plans, 25 million in small employer plans, and 10 million with individual policies had lifetime limits on their health benefits before the Affordable Care Act passed. Thus 105 million Americans now enjoy improved coverage without lifetime limits. And Republicans want to repeal “Obamacare.” I don’t get it.

Universal health coverage.  Here’s something else I don’t get — why we don't hear much about a certain politician’s radical proposal for universal healthcare a few years ago. See if you can identify this socialist-sounding individual. He wrote:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life. [W]e have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.  
      Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care. Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. …[O]ur present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws. First, even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the [millions of] Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes. 

     Second, those Americans who do carry health insurance often lack coverage which is balanced, comprehensive and fully protective …. These gaps in health protection can have tragic consequences. They can cause people to delay seeking medical attention until it is too late. Then a medical crisis ensues, followed by huge medical bills--or worse. Delays in treatment can end in death or lifelong disability.

This obviously left-leaning politician went on to propose a “comprehensive health insurance plan” that would offer universal coverage for all Americans. “Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America,” he stated. “There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing.”

The time was ripe back then to enact a plan of universal coverage. It would have been more “radical” than the health reform law that is now so much despised by Republicans and Tea Party bloviators. But we don’t hear much about this plan today. Why not? Because its proponent was Richard Nixon and the year was 1974, the year of Watergate. If not for that scandal, we would probably have a program of universal health insurance today, and it would be an accepted part of our national heritage: something we’re entitled to, like Social Security and Medicare. It would be another example of pursuing the Founding Fathers’ dream to “promote the general Welfare.”

The happiness project.  In January I wrote about the “happiness class” that my double cousin Doug Smith teaches at DePauw University and also at the Canyon Ranch resort a few times each year. Doug recently made a guest appearance on WOSU-FM, the Columbus, Ohio NPR station. You can hear him talk about what happiness is and how to get it by clicking here. (The headline has to do with a play about Afghanistan, but click on the green play button below the picture and skip forward to 34:45.)

Doug also wrote to some of his happiness disciples recently about pro golfer Rory McIlroy, who seems to know a lot about happiness already even though he’s just 22. In an interview quoted in USAToday Rory compared how he plays the game of golf to Tiger Woods’ approach. He said:

[Tiger] gives out this aura ... ‘I am going to rip your head off on the first tee.’  I felt like that was the way I needed to be to win a major.  But I quickly found out that that isn’t me and that isn’t how I play my best golf.  That was a big day for me, because I realized that I don’t need to be anyone else to win golf tournaments.  If I have my own mannerisms and do my own thing and be the person I am, that is hopefully going to be good enough.

Well, it is good enough, Rory! You're now the #1 ranked golfer in the world. 

Doug’s take on this was, “I think what Rory is talking about is loving the game… [and] playing from something deeper than fear and ego.” The Happiness Project teaches that living comfortably in one's own skin while avoiding fear and ego are keys to finding the kind of deep and abiding contentment we all seek.

Peace, y'all!

 # # #

Thoughts As We Commence 2012

I haven’t blogged for a couple of months because there have been a few things distracting me. So here are some desultory observations, some of which may help to explain my recent absence from the blogosphere.

"Death Makes Life Special"

Ironically, I learned this expression while attending the “Happiness Class” at DePauw University two weeks ago.  The class is a four-week undergraduate seminar taught by my double cousin, Doug Smith. [We are “double cousins,” you see, because his parents were my parents’ brother and sister. Got that?]  Genealogy aside, Doug’s class teaches the skill of being happy. That’s right, the happiness skill. As he puts it in his syllabus,

Happiness is a feeling of well-being and contentment that tends to reside with those who make choices that lead to serenity about the past, excitement and confidence about the future, and the ability to experience gratification and pleasure in the present. While everyone wants to be happy, we often fail to realize that it is a skill to be happy. It is easy to be miserable. Finding the wherewithal to have an underlying sense of well-being and contentment even in turbulent times is difficult.

Among the tools Doug uses to teach the happiness skill are scores of quotes that prompt class discussions on such topics as:

·  what happiness is

·  how the mind creates it

·  the power of love to combat fear

·  personal choices that affect our moods

·  how to deal with setbacks and loss.

One of those quotes, “death is what makes life special,” seemed unusually poignant because my mother (shown here with her newest "great") died six days before Christmas. She was 91 and ready to go. She passed over the final horizon calmly, painlessly, and at peace. In the process, Mom gave my two sisters and me (we were all there at the end) a special gift: the opportunity to bond as we never had before. For this I am most grateful. Also, the experience reminded me of the profound fact—which two weeks later Doug’s quote would cement firmly in my mind—that without the prospect of death, life would seem unexceptional.

3 double cousins: Carol, Doug & me

A similarly appropriate quote from the class was: “Happy people are not afraid of dying; they’re afraid of not living.” That speaks volumes. Think about it.

For more on the Happiness Class, see Doug’s website. And for background reading, pick up a copy of What Happy People Know by Dan Baker and Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. (Both are available in a Kindle edition.)

 On Being an Orphan

Now that both of my parents are gone, my main reson for being in Atlanta has evaporated. Given that I work from home, and since one can apply the “happiness skill” anywhere, I have literally a world full of options. Atlanta is a great city, but it’s not at the top of my list for a future domicile. I feel San Diego calling me back, and other “left coast” options are possible as well. Even Portland, Oregon intrigues me. (Carol Witherell, another double cousin lives there.) I’ve threatened to visit each of my offspring for four months a year, or maybe I’ll just buy a motor home and travel the country, imposing on various friends and former students for days or weeks at a time. Maybe I'll turn up on your doorstep some day soon. Stay tuned. 

The Book is Done!

This was my primary occupation during the fall months: putting finishing touches on the sixth edition of my textbook. The final page proofs came in waves, chapter by chapter, then the book rolled off the presses in December, thus ending an eighteen-month gestation period. The baby looks great, if I do say so myself. If you’re interested, visit the Health Administration Press website. 

In addition to writing the book, I produce monthly articles for the Healthcare Financial Management Association’s website, especially its “Legal & Regulatory Forum.” I will speak at the ACHE Congress on Healthcare Leadership in March. The topic there will be “Writing Policies, Making Sense”—how to write corporate policies that are clear and enforceable.

Two Curmudgeonly (but Happy!) Musings

First, is there no such thing as television news these days? I gave up on local TV news broadcasts years ago because except for sports and weather it’s all sensationalism. Similarly, the major networks’ news shows consist of a lot of entertainment segments rather than true information, and we all know that the Fox “News” Channel is just political propaganda. But for giggles the other day I turned on the Headline News Network to see what the top stories of the hour would be. They were, in chronological order:

     1.  “Controversy” over Governor Haley Barbour’s pardons in Mississippi, including emotional interviews with the victims’ family members. (This is not news. Governors have the discretion to pardon people. Spare me the weepy sentimentalism.)
     2.  Which politicians are not on the ballot in the Virginia primary. (Okay, they didn’t qualify; get over it.)
     3.  The Italian cruise ship that ran aground and foundered. (Now this is news; why isn’t it the hour's top story?)
     4.  The San Francisco sheriff who had some kind of domestic dispute with his wife but the wife says it wasn’t a big deal. (If it wasn't, why are you reporting on it? Oh, I forgot. Because it's "sexy" enough to pique viewers' interest and thus help sell air time.)
     5.  A missing baby case. (Here we go with a Casey Anthony-type thing again. Tugs at yer heartstrings, don’t it?)
     6.  A story about a girl from a homeless family who is getting a college scholarship and the family is being given a new home. (A feel-good story, for sure; but it’s a feature, not news. It hardly deserves coming before the first break.)
     7.  Brad and Angelina were guests at the White House. (Gag me!)

Second, is Tim Tebow a hypocrite?  With apologies to Broncos fans, I’m glad “Tebow Time” has run out for this year. Tebowmania was getting on my nerves almost as much as the incessant Christmas music that began playing in stores across America before Halloween. 

I mention hypocrisy because the subject of altruism came up in the Happiness Class, and I recalled a relevant passage in the Book of Matthew. It’s in Mt. 6:1-4 and reads, in part, “[W]hen you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray … at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. …  But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door [and pray in secret].” 

Amen to that!

 _______

Best wishes for 2012. I'll try to write more often.

Stuart

  

Certain of What We Can't See, Politics = Religion

Today is November 1—a.k.a. 11/1—which reminds me of the scriptural passage in Hebrews 11:1 that reads, “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Because my religion is skepticism and my legal training demands proof of matters asserted, not mere opinion and blind faith, I’ve long been amazed that people can be “sure” and “certain” of things for which there is no compelling evidence. [1]

Casey Anthony

Though it’s always simmering, faux certainty boiled to the surface when a recent dinner conversation touched on the Casey Anthony trial. Ms. Anthony, you may recall, is the Florida mom acquitted last July of killing her child because the government didn’t prove its case. Certain guests at the table absolutely knew that she’s guilty, and said so in no uncertain terms. When I probed them on how they could be sure, the answer boiled down to a gut feeling and Heb. 11:1.

     Never mind that they hadn’t been in the courtroom to hear the testimony. Never mind that they hadn’t seen one minute of the trial on Court TV. And never mind that the jurors who did hear all the evidence felt the prosecutors hadn’t proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The self-appointed judges at the table were prepared to condemn a defendant they’d never seen on the strength of newspaper accounts, talk radio call-in shows, and commentaries by the likes of Nancy Grace (who, among others, ranted for ratings while the trial was underway).

     I understand my friends’ emotional, visceral reaction—and I must admit that something does seem fishy about the whole case—but my inner lawyer had to point out that “not guilty” is a technical term. It does not mean that the defendant did no wrong; it means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict her. We don’t send people to jail on the basis of intuition or a biblical faith in things not seen.

     Somehow the discussion then turned to politics, and one of the guests proclaimed proudly that she’s a Republican. How that was relevant to anything I don’t recall but it led to various opinions around the table about President Obama, healthcare reform, the state of the economy, and so forth. It was clear to me that we were on dangerous ground, and mercifully the Republican saw the quicksand too and changed the subject.

The Hebrews scripture

Only later that evening did I recall the passage from Hebrews and come to the realization that one could substitute opinion for faith in that scripture. One’s opinion—whether about a celebrity trial, a political candidate, or a given public policy issue—is rarely more than a matter of faith. Not being well versed in the facts, our opinions amount to little more than the assurance of things hoped for and the certainty of things not seen. I ask you:

• Who among us sat in the jury box and heard all the evidence in Casey Anthony’s trial? Not you, not my dinner companions, and not I. Who are we to judge?
• Who among us knows all the relevant details of the health reform law? Not I, even though I’ve read the whole thing, have given it serious study, and have written about it in my work. And certainly not the Breakfast Bloviator of whom I wrote in October of last year.
• Who among us will know what the political candidates really stand for when we go to the polls next year? None of us. All we’ll know is sound bites and the “spin” that gets reported in the media.

Unless we are experts on a particular subject, what most of us think we know about these and an infinite number of similar questions is what the media feed us. And the media—whether print or electronic, commercial or “public”—feed us what we want to hear. Local television, Fox News Channel, the New York Times, even NPR—all have to stay in business. And they know that their respective audiences suffer from the psychological flaw known as confirmation bias—a tendency to support the things one already believes or wants to be true while ignoring evidence to the contrary. In other words, “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.”[2]

     Confirmation bias helps to explain “nonsmart” things like psychics, “birthers,” and Michelle Bachmann. It may be the reason for selective memory, conspiracy theories, and belief in UFOs. It may even help to explain Hebrews 11:1.

     Is confirmation bias why my Republican friends refuse to consider virtually anything Obama and the Democrats support? Is blind faith in Reaganomics the reason why the top 1% of wealthy Americans aren’t asked to kick in a bit more to solve the debt crisis? Is confirmation bias the reason Fox News and talk radio can stay on the air?

Politics = religion

Being “certain” of one’s beliefs in the face of—or while refusing to consider—contrary evidence is not especially harmful as a matter of religious preference. But when unjustified certainty begins to confirm prejudices and to affect public policy, it is malignant. If we are blind to evidence that refutes our preconceived hypotheses, we are in danger of crossing the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness and bigotry.[3]  

     Hebrews 11:1 helps me remember that politics is a religion: a blind faith in things we hope for but cannot (or will not) see. I don’t discuss religion with others; henceforth I won’t discuss politics either. Confirmation bias makes either conversation futile and frustrating, and trying to influence someone’s political opinion is as likely to succeed as trying to persuade them that their religion is wrong.

     Exactly one year from Sunday—November 6, 2012—millions of U.S. citizens will march to the polls and exercise their religio-political right to vote, and they will do so based on little more than blind faith in their preconceived notions. My New Year’s resolution for 2012 will be to explain confirmation bias to any of them who will listen. Unfortunately, given the concepts expressed in Heb. 11:1, not many will.

# # #

Once again, my Personal Creed--
Don't believe everything you read or hear. Always be skeptical. Always doubt. Demand proof. Spread truth, not rumor.

_______________

Sixth Edition cover

[Editor’s note: For the past two months the Hermit Philosopher has been preoccupied with the final stages of textbook publication. The book will go to the printer in a week or so, and then the HP will resume a more regular blogging schedule.]

---

[1] See the blogs “Opinions are Not Facts,” parts I and II, Oct. 2010.

[2] M. Shermer, “Smart People Believe Weird Things,” Scientific American, Aug. 12, 2002.

[3] See, e.g., http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html.

On Editors: An Apologia for Those Who Prepare Works for Publication

A few people have commented recently on how much I write: this blog, my forthcoming textbook,* regular articles for a healthcare association’s website, and editing projects undertaken for friends and family. On this last point they have a sense of wonder that I can take somebody’s garbled prose and make it read well. They seem to believe that writing and editing are gifts from the gods; that they’re genetic, like an ear for music; that you either have the language gene or you don’t.
 

But they’re wrong. Writing is simply a skill you can practice. You can tinker with your prose (or poetry), hone it, polish it; you can do it yourself or let an editor help, as I’m doing for a friend. He has written a 24-page book proposal, and I’m emending it (making suggestions for improvement). I prepared him for what is to come with the following commentary about the writing and editing process.  Perhaps this little essay will help salve some wounds when he sees his manuscript practically bleeding with my red-pen changes.

First, I love editors. Nothing I write is so good that it can’t be made better, so I always appreciate an editor’s suggestions. But they are suggestions only. Unless it’s a work done for hire, the final product is mine alone and I am free to accept or reject another’s opinion. Of course a publisher is free to accept or reject my MS too, so I give an editor’s or agent’s comments considerable weight.

Second, there is no such thing as good writing; there is only good rewriting. To make something an easy read involves a lot of rewriting. (“Easy reading is damned hard writing.” – Nathaniel Hawthorne.)

Third, it’s really, really hard to edit one’s own work—which is another reason I give serious consideration to the comments of others. When I am proofing and rewriting, I find it helpful to change the venue. If I composed the draft at my computer, I print it out and take the document to the living room or the pool or somewhere else. A change of scene helps me see the work with “new eyes.” So does setting the thing aside for a few days and returning to it afresh. Even changing the font or screen size on the computer helps.

Fourth, I never rely solely on the grammar checker on the word processing application. (Mine thinks "unforgiveable" is a correct spelling, for example.)

Fifth, I read my stuff aurally, so to speak. By that I mean: how something sounds to my “mind’s ear” is important. I “listen” to the words as I read them, and I often read out loud when editing to get the rhythm and emphasis correct. If it sounds awkward to my ear, it likely will be awkward to the reader’s eye as well.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we speak to be understood; but we write to make it impossible to be misunderstood. So I always write, edit, and rewrite with attention to how the reader will understand the words, not merely how I intend them. This is especially important for my friend's book. It is based on material he presents in a classroom: he lectures, students discuss, they ask questions, and he clarifies. Before class is over, he makes sure they understand. But with the written word an author has just one bite at the apple. The work has to be perfect from the get-go.  

_____

Perhaps these thoughts will help those of you who think you have no aptitude for writing.  Like trying to get to Carnegie Hall, all it takes is "practice, practice, practice."

And a good editor. :-)

______

*My book will make a great Christmas gift, by the way!  LOL