Living a small life

I read a short reflection today that made me think about several things. It said that we cannot shut ourselves away from the problems in the world, as much as we would like to. We cannot live small, safe, little lives away from it all, because we have to be a part of the world, we have to care about the world. That was the gist of it. I am not sure if I agree completely with this viewpoint; more about that shortly. I then thought about how the media want us to live our daily lives. They would like nothing better than that we lurch from one (media-created) crisis to another. There are enough real crises in the world without the media adding to them. But clickbait and ratings decide everything. 

Given the two different aspects mentioned above, I got to thinking about why I don't want to immerse myself wholeheartedly in the world's problems. Overall, some of them are more major than others, but what they have in common is that they swirl about in a cesspool, a cesspool of crime, greed, violence, brutality, corruption, hatred, cynicism, apathy--the list is long. And the media is happy to report every little aspect of it. Ad nauseam. Why would a person want to voluntarily immerse himself or herself in this cesspool each day? What does it do to one's psyche? The psychological effect cannot be good. 

Most of us live small, safe, little lives, away from the limelight. Most of us in fact shy away from the limelight, from public attention, from being scrutinized and dissected by the media. Having said that, I do admire anyone who genuinely wants to help society by becoming a politician. He or she knows from the get-go what they're in for. Politics is not for the fainthearted. But by and large, the majority of us will never experience such media scrutiny. By choice. 

So I don't agree that there is something wrong with wanting to live a small little life. One cannot make a blanket assumption that because a person's life is small, that he or she has not done something that counts here in this world. If that person has lived a good life, has been kind to others and to animals, has raised (or helped to raise) a family, has worked and contributed his or her talents, that should count toward the overall evaluation of his or her life. We who are outside that life cannot be the judge of how that life was lived. 

A small little life gives room for reflection, for peace, for quiet, for figuring out what is and what is not important. Lurching from one crisis to the next will not solve anything, will not provide the needed time for reflection. There is nothing wrong with wanting a small life. But whether life is big or small, it is never safe all the time, and it is futile to try to desperately keep it safe. Life is filled with risks that we must take in order to grow as individuals. They may not always lead down happy paths or safe ones. Life is also filled with personal crises; no one escapes. Some of those crises may force us out into the larger world; some may make us retreat even more from the world. I know people who have had debilitating neurological illnesses who preferred to retreat from the world. They felt that they had nothing to offer it anymore. In fact, they did, but their choices had to be respected. They did what they felt was best for them and their families. 

We are almost midway through an election year, a year that promises to be a chaotic one news-wise. Knowing this in advance, many of us are planning how to keep the media wolves at bay. How to keep them from invading our lives and homes. I understand that people want to do this. I want to do it too. 

Restoring equilibrium and peace by not watching the news

It is easier than you think to kill the joy and spirit in others and in the society around us. For starters, just count up the number of feel-good articles that make it onto the news versus the number of articles detailing wars, rapes, murders, mass shootings, aggressive behaviors of all kinds (especially in politics), all sorts of upcoming diseases and epidemics, and all of the other assorted miseries that define our 'civilized' society. If you spent most of your free time reading or watching the news, you'd slowly go crazy. You'd at least sink into depression. And yet that's what many people do--allow the drivel that passes for news--to invade and permeate their daily lives. There is no peace to be found in living that way. A continuous presentation of bad behavior will alter your world view for sure. If it doesn't make you cynical, it will make you fearful. There are a lot of people who live in fear.  

I'm not saying we should shut out news shows completely, we cannot, but I am in favor of shutting out a large portion of them in order to be able to live peacefully and peaceably with others. Society is done no favors if its members are continually distrustful, fearful, and ultimately cynical about said society's capability to take care of them should real trouble arise. I think we have reached that tipping point. I don't see how falling into an abyss of despair and nihilism helps anyone. Yet that's what we're being tipped into en masse. 

The losses of joy and the spark that keeps us alive and moving forward are not trivial or banal things. What is the motive of the companies who present (their version of) the news? Do they want to inform or do they want to destroy the basic goodness in people? I have to ask that question. I'm not likely to get an answer, but I am aware that I am being played. And it's not a good feeling. I spent one happy day yesterday 'offline', as in, I didn't go near my computer nor did I watch any news programs. Doing that for one day restored my equilibrium. I'm going to do it more often. 

The bad news that envelopes us

Just a sample of the bad news that is available to us 24/7. This is just today's list of the negativity that defines the world at present. Everything is 'catastrophic, problematic, alarming, deeply troubling, staggering, on the verge of collapse, deadly, etc'. 

Atlantic Ocean is headed for a tipping point − once melting glaciers shut down the Gulf Stream, we would see extreme climate change within decades, study shows (msn.com)

Atlantic Ocean Currents Could Collapse and Shut Down, New Study (businessinsider.com)

What Does the 1.5 C Marker of Global Warming Mean? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Mary Sanchez: America must choose – Aging man with bad recall or the one with evil intentions (msn.com)

How Old Is Too Old to Be President? Biden Report Raises Uncomfortable Question Again. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Why Does Everyone Seem To Have The Flu Right Now? (msn.com)

The deadly fungal disease C. auris spreading across the US explained - symptoms, treatment and outbreaks (msn.com)

'No common symptoms' for deadly fungal disease sweeping US, public health agency warns (msn.com)

Measles Now Spreading in 9 States Amid 'Staggering' Outbreak, CDC Warns (msn.com)

Costco, Trader Joe's, Walmart products recalled amid listeria outbreak (msn.com)

California knows the way to end homelessness. It's time to find the will. (msn.com)

New problem found on Boeing 737 Max planes | CNN Business

How production pressures plunged Boeing into yet another crisis | Reuters

California earthquake: Millions in Los Angeles and Malibu feel quake after Hawaii tremors (msn.com)

Vladimir Putin wants 'massacre across Europe' after 'deranged' Tucker Carlson interview (msn.com)

Reflective compliance and non-compliance

When I was younger I was more compliant, in the sense that I acquiesced to the wishes of others rather than pressure others to do what I wanted. My will did not trump the will of others in many cases. I was like my father, interested in keeping the peace rather than asserting my own will. I'm not sure that was always a good thing, but it doesn't really matter at this point because that's who I was. I didn't really question my behavior, and my compliance did not involve ultra-serious issues, just so that's clear. Over time my compliance has evolved into a more reflective compliance; I may go along with your plans and wishes, but I choose to do so, knowingly and willingly. My compliance is no longer automatic or non-reflective. It's more a compromise with myself; if I do this now, then I will have time for the things on which I wish to focus later on or tomorrow. And I will have that time because I will it. I won't be talked out of it. It may seem selfish to some, but there is a firm desire in me now to follow that little internal voice that tells me to prioritize my goals and dreams and to not waste time. 

Because that is what it comes down to--time. Time is a precious commodity, not to be squandered on valueless things. I have no desire to be an older person who sits in front of the boob tube 24/7, aimlessly switching from one television channel to the next, desperately trying to find something of interest. I refuse to be automatically compliant with advertisers and media pundits who tell me what I should buy, watch, wear, or spend my time on. The point with all forms of entertainment and media--television, movies, radio, newspapers, social media--is to choose carefully when to let them into our daily lives and for how long. It is to choose carefully how much impact you wish them to have on your daily life. My view? Something of interest is right outside your front door. If you have your health, go for a walk in a nearby park, go for a scenic drive, take up a hobby, garden, learn a new language, spend time with a friend, travel, read a good book, or write. Too many people do not have their health, or live each day with diminishing health. Those are the people whom I think of when I consider how to spend the time that God has given me. Good health is not to be taken for granted, it is a gift not to be squandered. Those I know who do not have their health would agree and they tell me that. 

There is one other thing to consider, and that is that if you are constantly being bombarded by what the media and 'well-meaning' people throw at you and insist that you follow or absorb, you will not have the quiet time to reflect and listen to the voice of God trying to reach you. It's hard to hear God in the midst of the cacophony all around us. I have reached the point where trying to discern the voice of God is more important to me than trying to sort through the discordant voices of men. Because it seems to me that discord, divisiveness, ill will and hatred are what drive very many people, and the media reflect that and whip up the masses even more when they get the chance. As do some people whom I call the 'gloom and doomers', the ones who want to start their day (and yours) by filling their minds with all sorts of societal problems and horrors. I refuse to be led by the nose by the different forms of media and the gloom and doomers who do not have my best interests at heart. In the case of the media, their interests are purely monetary, driven by greed. I won't go down their paths. I choose my own path and follow that little voice inside of me, the one that tells me to continue on the path that I have chosen. Of course I know about the problems, I read about them, but I refuse to be compliant in the sense of giving in and giving up, stating that the world is just crappy and I can't do anything about it. I won't do that, not when there still is a lot of good in the world. It's just to seek out the good in the small places where it lives and blooms, away from the media spotlight.

Daily outrage as interpreted by Wiley Miller

Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller is one of my favorite comic strips. I thought this comic from a few days ago was rather apt, since the people who need to be outraged on a daily basis get excellent help from the media--newspapers, cable news, television news, online news. Take your pick. 

Fight or flight response to the daily media bombardment of our lives with fake threats

It is possible to become extremely weary of the current climate of hysteria, conspiracy theories, arrogance, paranoia, continual anger, hostility and the sowing of divisiveness everywhere one turns. The media should be very careful moving forward, not to foment divisiveness and hysteria at every juncture. It simply is not healthy to live each day in 'fight or flight' mode in response to anger, threats or stress. Adrenaline (epinephrine) levels rise and lead to rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, anxiety, excessive sweating and palpitations, among others. This response is necessary when we are faced with real threats where we need to escape in order to survive. But when we watch tv, read newspapers or look at other media that cause us constant anger and stress, we open ourselves to a lot of unnecessary health problems. 

There are so many irritating situations and people that abound these days. The media latch on to them and blow them up or out of proportion. They exaggerate their importance. Their readers or viewers end up yelling at the tv or becoming angry at what they read in the newspapers, and they anger and irritate family members who have null desire to be sucked into that black hole of anger on a daily basis. Each day, we allow media versions of the daily miseries around us, to invade our living rooms. Each day, we allow ourselves to get angry, stressed, confused, hysterical, and our bodies thank us by raising our levels of adrenaline and cortisol so that we can fight the threats. The problem is that this daily practice leads to unhealthy bodies. We can't be constantly on the alert for threats. Like adrenaline, cortisol is also produced by the adrenal glands. Cortisol narrows the arteries, while adrenaline increases the heart rate. The combined effect of both hormones is to make the heart pump harder. Another effect of cortisol is to stimulate fat and carbohydrate metabolism to provide energy for the body in threatening situations, which can in turn increase appetite. Weight gain and elevated cortisol levels can often go hand in hand. It makes sense that these are not physiological states that one would want to experience often during each day in response to 'fake' threats. 

The media may say they are interested in presenting the facts, but even the few that try to live up to that ideal do make serious mistakes or find that their journalists are not always ethical human beings. 'Fact-based' stories can end up being anything but. I am fed up with newspapers that do not wish to be labeled tabloid newspapers, yet their headlines are nothing more than click bait. The editors know that the online versions of their newspapers will garner many views if they include click bait headlines. So they do. This doesn't make them ethical, it makes them greedy. It shows me that they are only interested in beating their competition. They're not really interested in the truth. They're part of the problem, since they help to create anger, divisiveness, and conspiracy theories in the quest for money. Greed is the root of all evil. Greed is the root of the insanity we are witness to in our present societies. 

Let's rid our daily lives of the fake threats. I am slowly reaching the point where I no longer want to know what is going on in the world on a daily basis. I'm happier not knowing. If I need to stay updated, I can briefly skim an online version of Reuters or the BBC, where the hysteria is kept to a minimum. And an added benefit is that I don't have to see too many headlines about celebrities doing stupid things or making stupid pronouncements about things they know nothing about. Because that's another thing I'm fairly fed up with--the entire celebrity culture. I simply don't care about any of them. They're no better than any of us, they're just richer, and as such, also represent the insane quest for money that permeates our societies. 

Civility and respect for others

I cancelled yet another newspaper subscription this morning. My husband and I have discussed cancelling our different newspaper subscriptions for the past two years, mostly because we find that they have gone from being newspapers that used to try to present the news in a neutral fashion, to being purveyors of whatever agenda they wish to push at present. To some of you, this might seem rather short-sighted; after all, you can argue that we need to get our news from someplace. We need to follow what is happening in the world. And to a certain extent, you're right. But also wrong. Because what I didn't see happening was this--we're happier without them. We no longer start the day with misery; we no longer have to discuss all that's wrong with the world at the breakfast table. I no longer ruin the start of my day by letting all the world's ills overwhelm me the minute I get up. They seep in anyway during the day, and if we watch the tv news as we do sporadically, we certainly get our dose of misery. So we don't escape it, we just control how it happens and how much we let in.

Newspapers in all countries need to be careful about over-pushing their agendas, be they conservative or liberal. Most of us grew up in a bipartisan atmosphere (at least the families I grew up with in our neck of the woods), able to see both sides, even if we leaned toward one or the other a bit more. I know there was political unrest, hatred, bitterness and spite back in the 1960s, 70s and 80s when we were growing up; you just need to google Vietnam, racial unrest, Watergate and Nixon. But it is so totally extreme and out of control now. Nowadays, judging by what I see happening in the USA, we are so bitterly divided, with the gap widening a bit more each day, such that I fear for the future of our country. We are still a young country compared to most European countries that have centuries of wars and unrest behind them. It feels like a civil war is already taking place in America, fought in the media trenches and in social media and online generally. If you have the 'wrong' opinion and express it, you can expect to be hung out, brutally criticized, suppressed, fired from your job, or other such outcomes depending on the audience that gets a hold of what you said. You will get your fifteen minutes of fame and then some, but not in the manner you would have chosen for yourself. Good people who might want to say something become afraid to do so, whereas the people who don't care at all what other people think of them, have free reign.

I don't want a civil war, nor do I want a world where we are not able to express our opinions. But there is a way of expressing opinions that needs to change. We need to relearn civility. Civility is defined as 'formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech'. We need to relearn how to respect others. It is possible to have a different opinion from others without expressing hatred for those who do not share your views. It is possible to discuss both sides of a situation without being labelled a pariah for doing so. Isn't this approach what judges and lawyers engage in everyday? They work on court cases that need examination of both sides of the issue. Imagine a world where judges ruled a person guilty before the trial. That would not be a democracy, and would not be a country I'd want to live in. And yet, we are behaving in this way on social media and in the media generally, judging and sentencing people before they and we have had a chance to discuss the issues.

Some younger people I know have now limited or cancelled their social media accounts because of the hatred they see online. It's tempting to follow them. I haven't up to now because social media remains an important connection to my family and friends in the USA. But I have reduced my interaction with social media in order to stay peaceful. You might ask why peace is so important to me; after all, the world has many problems that need to be tackled. That's true. But I know from experience that anger and volatility don't solve problems. They fuel the fire of hatred and revenge. Assertiveness, peaceful protests, standing up for yourself, being able to reach out to the other side in order to discuss the issues--these are what solve problems. Diplomacy, compromise, an empathetic approach--these solve problems. Anger gets spent, and after it burns out, the real work begins. The question at present is who will be willing to work for real change in politics at home and globally. The type of change needed must be fronted by civil and respectful leaders.

The pressure to have an opinion about everything

We are giving up our subscription to the daily newspaper, the paper version that gets delivered to our door each day, as of the start of the new year. I have mixed feelings about doing so; on the one hand, I want to support newspapers and a free press, on the other hand, I have grown weary of modern journalism and its insistence on having to dissect everything ad nauseam in order to 'present the facts', and on its insistence that everyone has to have an opinion about every issue reported on. Their contribution to the polarization (especially political) we see in society at present is considerable. They are no longer neutral purveyors of the news. The fact of the matter is that many newspapers and TV stations are partisan, supporting either liberal or conservative sides, and no matter how they try to disguise that they are not able to do so. Their partisan stance always shines through whatever is reported. And that is the major reason why I won't miss the daily newspaper, and why I have reduced the time I spend watching TV news. I find both very stressful; they 'invade' the peace of daily life that is so hard to come by, and they force readers and viewers to take sides, to have an opinion about everything (regardless of whether readers and viewers are well-informed about specific issues or not). The most stressful thing I know is people who spout their (often-uninformed) opinions about everything under the sun, but if you ask them how they know what they say is true, their answer is that they read it in one or another newspaper, or worse, on social media. Surprisingly, intelligent people fall into this trap as well; 'I read it/heard it in the news' (therefore it must be true) is a standard comment in so many conversations and discussions. What surprises me is that this comment often ends an interesting discussion, because the person who utters it expresses little to no interest in exploring a specific issue further, in other words, no interest in going deeper, under the surface, to learn about whether what they profess to be true or false, is really so. 

When I am asked my opinion about a specific issue these days, I often answer 'I don't know' or 'I don't have an opinion'. This is the truth. Often I don't have an opinion about a specific issue because I am not informed about it, and I don't want to be pressured into uttering an opinion I neither stand for nor have reflected upon. The latter is very important to me these days; I want the time to reflect on the issues that come my way. I also appreciate the freedom to reject issues that do not interest me. In other words, I am not interested in having an opinion about absolutely everything. Firstly, it is impossible to have an opinion about absolutely everything, and secondly, having an opinion about absolutely everything is characteristic of superficiality. If you ask me about a scientific issue, I can most likely answer your question or have an opinion about it, e.g. vaccination or cancer treatment, because I have studied and worked in science for many years and consider myself reasonably informed. If you ask me about a political issue, I can tell you what I may prefer in politics, but I cannot say that my answer is an informed opinion, because I know very little about politics, and it would be stupid of me to argue stubbornly for my way of thinking. I would have to concede to politicians or those who are well-informed about politics in a political discussion. The problem nowadays is that few people are willing to say 'I don't know'. Few people are willing to listen to the experts tell them about a specific issue. Few people are willing to really learn about an issue. Many people will argue and stubbornly continue to argue for their point of view in the face of truth and facts that prove their opinions to be false. If you want to be informed, there are many ways to get informed, but you have to be willing to invest the time needed to read and to reflect upon what you read. You have to be willing to talk to the experts and read what they have written. And if you want to remain neutral in a partisan world, you need to be informed about what both sides stand for. Actually, many issues have multiple sides, not just two sides. It is entirely possible to remain neutral, to want a non-partisan world without it necessarily being an overly politically-correct world. Neutrality and political correctness are not the same thing. Neutrality (at least for me) implies the desire to acknowledge that there are multiple sides to an issue and to reflect upon the associated pros and cons. One will always have opinions about some issues important to oneself; one cannot have opinions about absolutely every societal issue. 

The value of collectively shutting up

My generation grew up with the quote 'Silence is golden'. And my mother also used to say, 'If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all'. Another stellar quote, in my opinion. We were encouraged not to open our mouths on all occasions as young adults, and as children, we were strictly instructed not to. Overall, we were raised to not talk back to our parents or elders. The key word was respect. We were taught to respect our parents and/or elders whether we liked it or not, and whether or not they actually deserved it. When I was around twelve years old, I began to understand that not all adults deserved my respect. But I didn't tell them that to their faces. I simply tried to avoid having anything to do with them whenever possible, which was not always easy. But not always opening my mouth to tell people what I thought--of them or about specific issues--was valuable training. 'Think before you speak' was one of those quotes that took root in my brain from very early on. I learn to be a bit wary of people who were quick to tell you their opinions, who were quick to judge others, who were quick to shift their opinions, and who tended to dominate with their opinions.

But back to the first two quotes. The world appears to have forgotten their value. Every time we turn around, some pundit is telling us what he or she thinks. The media and just about everyone else have an opinion about everything. Everyone is an expert on just about everything. I respect those people who when asked for their opinion, are honest and say they don't have one, or that they don't know enough about the situation to have a conclusive opinion, or something along those lines. I also respect those people who take their time in answering a question about how they think or feel about something. I fall into the latter group--someone who doesn't always have a ready answer or an immediate opinion, someone who needs to retreat into herself in order to think about what she really thinks and feels about a specific situation. I would say that my opinions about things are for the most part well-reasoned. I don't tend to 'open my mouth and insert foot'. I like working with and associating with people who are not quick to open their mouths with their opinions about everything under the sun. Modern workplaces encourage employees to brainstorm. It's all well and good, but again, the opinionated people tend to dominate. Those who wish to think about a specific issue, or who need time to do so, do not. In the world at large, it's the brash and the aggressive people who dominate in the media. Turn on the TV news, and there's another story about Trump--always larger than life, and who never shuts his mouth. After a while, you lose interest. Everything is drama, over-the-top drama. Everything is a crisis, except that it's not. The crises are Trump-made, and he uses them for all they are worth. He incites his followers, many of whom adopt his opinions uncritically. Trump is one example; the media generally are another example of those who never shut their mouths. They are paid to keep talking, to keep spouting the same story, the same rhetoric, over and over. I miss the days when I sat with my father on a Sunday afternoon and watched 'Meet the Press' with him. The debates were interesting; it was possible to listen to reasoned opinions from both political sides without name-calling, harassment, degradation or embarrassing situations. I don't want a world where the press is muzzled; I would appreciate a press that used more time on figuring out what is worth reporting and how to do so. Not everything is interesting, nor does absolutely everything need to be dissected ad nauseam.

I think we need to take a break from talking all the time. We need some silence. We need time to evaluate whether the opinions we are spouting are well-reasoned, and whether they are really our opinions or the opinions of media and political pundits. The world would benefit from a 'collective shut up', e.g. one day a week. We could use that day to digest the news and current events; we could figure out what we really want from our politicians and from the media. Or we could just 'enjoy the silence' as Depeche Mode sings. Whatever we use the day for, it's got to be a better use of our time than being the passive recipients of a constant bombardment of others' opinions. It may even help us to learn to better communicate. Because when we are constantly being bombarded, we lose our footing and we end up adrift. We end up irritated, confused, and even angry--angry at those people and situations that are constantly destroying our peace of soul and peace of mind. That cannot lead to anything good.

An article worth reading--An American in a Strange Land by Jim Yardley

America in 2016--how did we get here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/an-american-in-a-strange-land.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below

An agenda of snobbery

Earlier this month we attended a boating get-together of (mostly) Norwegians who are interested in wooden boats. It’s always an interesting and enjoyable time when I’m together with them. The majority are men in their late 50s, 60s and early 70s. Some attend these get-togethers with their wives and kids/grand-kids, whereas others are there without their families. All of them are very wealthy and fairly conservative. When they first meet me, I’m the one who stands out from the crowd, because they hear that I'm an American the minute I open my mouth. I speak Norwegian fluently, but with a decidedly New York accent. Most of them are nice people and friendly to me, if a bit skeptical because of what they’ve heard or know about America. Most of what they know about the USA is based on what they read in Norwegian newspapers or what they hear on TV. I for my part am open and willing to talk to them; I don’t shy away or retreat from the social doings. My conversations with them are usually about how long I have lived in Norway, what I do for a living, and where I work. I end up talking to some of the wives; this year, one of them, a 73-year old woman who had traveled quite a bit around the world, told me about her very enjoyable cross-country tour of the USA some years ago. She loved it and mentioned that her husband did as well (which was not exactly true as I later discovered—she was speaking for him). It was quite interesting to talk with her, and we ended up having a very nice conversation. Eventually her husband joined us, and she told him how nice it was to have met me and conversed with me. It didn’t take long for me to discover that he had an agenda that he wanted to share with me. He had traveled in the USA by himself, he told me, and he had never met so many stupid people in his life (dumme amerikanere). By stupid, he meant untraveled and uninterested in the rest of the world. Since he was easily 73 or 74 years old, his traveling (for business) had been done when he was in his 40s, which meant back in the 1980s. He seemed quite keen on imparting that information to me--that many Americans were stupid. It always strikes me as quite odd that some few Europeans have that particular agenda that they wish to share with me, as though they think that I will immediately agree with them or try to do something about their complaint. Or perhaps he was hoping that I would get my hackles up (I didn't, I kept my cool). What struck me most was the dissimilarity between him and his wife—he was a snob and his wife was not. He clearly did not like that his wife had enjoyed talking to me (a commoner) and was in a hurry to end the conversation. Whenever I meet Europeans like that, it always reminds me of why I am glad to be an American. I am so used to meeting different people from different countries and cultures, and it would never cross my mind to tell a Norwegian whom I had just met that in my opinion, many of his or her countrymen were stupid. I was raised to be a respectful person, and if there is one thing I am not, it’s a snob. In any case, he behaved rudely because he wanted to end the conversation, and not surprisingly, it ended. When I saw them the next day, they both ignored me. I gathered that he had probably put his wife in her place. 

I no longer take these snubs personally as I did when I first moved here. It is no longer a surprise to me that some Europeans really do not like the USA. When I look at how the media present the USA to them, it is no surprise at all. In the Norwegian tabloid media at least, the USA is a gun-loving, gun-toting, aggressive, imperialistic, capitalistic country, bent on world domination. It sounds almost silly, but that is the picture painted of the USA. The serious media present specific issues (e.g. gun control, health insurance) in an in-depth manner, so at least the nuances are discussed. It is surprising to me how preoccupied Norwegian media are with what goes on in the USA. Our politicians, political situations, debates and conventions are big news here. Sometimes I think Europeans are more concerned about the problems in the USA than they are about the problems in their own countries. Or perhaps they think that their countries are problem-free. Rest-assured that the latter is not the case; Europe has real problems with terrorism/extremist activities that are only going to get worse before they get better, unfortunately. 

I have given up trying to explain to skeptical Europeans that most of the Americans I know are no different than they are—educated, married, raising or have raised families, healthy and unhealthy, hard-working, thinking about retirement, wanting to travel, and so on. It surprises me that well-educated Europeans have not figured this out yet. Apparently they believe everything they read or hear in the media, and their protests notwithstanding, many of them get most of their news from the tabloid media. Or maybe they just don't want to broaden their minds, because if they did, they would no longer be able to see the world in black and white. Perhaps it scares them to think about broadening their perspectives. That surprises me most of all, since it is exactly what they criticize Americans for. 

Things I do not want

Sometimes there are dry spells when it comes to creativity, energy, and motivation, and I’ve had some dry spells recently, when it seems that writing, photography and all of the other creative things that nourish the soul, are not worth pursuing. A spiritual malaise sets in, and sometimes spills over into the physical realm. The darkness and grayness of winter can sap a person for strength, ditto for soulless workplaces that do nothing to nourish the soul. They rather destroy it slowly.

What I don’t want at this point in my life: I don’t want to work anymore, at least not in the traditional sense. My soul derives nothing from the daily 9 to 5 grind that I used to love so much. It gets zero nourishment from a public sector workplace that is dominated by a bureaucracy that kills all motivation, by numerous leaders who are completely ineffective and who could care less about their employees, and by a level of inefficiency that in and of itself could drive a normal person to drink. Albert Einstein wrote that “Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work”. He wrote that line during the early part of the 20^th century and was completely spot on! The saving grace of any workplace is of course your co-workers, many of whom feel the same way as I do, so there is some amount of shared commiseration while we all plod onward in the muck. But some of them are younger and haven’t experienced soul-sucking environments for years on end, so they are not as weary of the whole thing as I am. I still have several years to go before I can retire, and I honestly wonder at times how I’m going to survive those years without burning out.

I also do not want to work all day in an office the size of a tiny kitchen that I share with another person, with windows that open a crack, with fluorescent lighting that can never in a million years take the place of sunlight, for the prescribed number of hours. I find all sorts of excuses now to be out of my office, to be outdoors, or to leave early. Modern workplace buildings, for all their so-called environmentally-friendly architecture and technology, are completely divorced from nature, from wildness, from the outdoors. There is nothing like fresh air, a gentle breeze, sunshine on your skin, a walk along a river, or just being outdoors, to restore the soul. I want to be outdoors any chance I get. My body makes those decisions for me, and I am learning to just follow what it wants, because it wants healthy things for me.

I don’t want to listen to or to watch endless news stories about all of the horrible things going on in the world for which there are no solutions. All those stories do is create despair. Newspapers and television have become like the Dementors in the Harry Potter books—soul-sucking creatures. They bring up a problem again and again, propose few to no solutions, and suck the energy from those who try by bombarding them nonstop with stupid questions. If you are going to have an opinion about the problem, then for God’s sake have an opinion about the solution to that problem. I know the world is in deep trouble; tell me something else. Tell me about the people working to change things, trying to solve problems, trying to help, and tell me about all that in an intelligent, respectful, and decent way. Stop being belligerent, aggressive, nonstop pandering machines. Stop pandering to the lowest common denominator in listeners--to the basest instincts in people, every chance you get. Don’t encourage bigotry, hatred, and violence by talking about it ad nauseam. Stop making the rest of the world think that America is filled with pro-Trump and pro-Palin idiots. There are over 315 million people in the USA; the news media in Europe would have us think that all Americans support Trump; the American media are doing very little to dispel that notion. All of the Americans I know that are family and close friends, do not support Trump or the other GOP idiots. So there. My appeal to the media here and in the USA—please shut up unless you have something positive to say or some solution for how to get rid of Trump before November.

And while we’re at it—could we please end the reality TV culture and celebrity worship? I don’t want to see another Kardashian (any of them) on my TV screen or in any newspapers for as long as I live. I don’t watch these shows, never have and never will, but it seems as if whatever so-called 'celebrities' do is news-worthy. Here's a quick tip--NOT. Is this what money does to people’s brains? Can heads of the media no longer see what quality is and what crap is?

I no longer read the newspaper at breakfast. I read the comics page (since it is actually more intelligent than much of what passes for news--you need only to read Bloom County to know that) and then put the paper aside until later in the day. I refuse to discuss the grotesque goings-on in the world when I first get up. There are many things to be thankful for--the life we have been given, the chance to live another day, the chance to wake up to sunshine, the chance to love those in our lives (humans and pets), to chance to choose healthy, and the chance to appreciate the world we live in and to take care of it. That's how I want to start my day, and live my day. 

Celebrating a network of women

There is a lot of emphasis at present placed on the importance of building networks in the work world, and how employees won’t get very far professionally without them. Women especially are admonished for not working harder to build and maintain their professional networks. You never know when you may need them, and you never know when your network may need you. I’ve reflected upon how this relates to my own life. Most of my professional network contacts are women. Many of my contacts/friends entered my life via my different jobs, others through schools and universities, still others from the neighborhood I grew up in. Those I’ve met via my different jobs have become my friends, and we’ve stayed friends even after we’ve left the jobs where we met.

My professional and personal networks overlap to a large degree; I consider my professional contacts to be my friends. And my friends from outside of work, from my childhood neighborhood and schools, are a support network for me in all ways, sometimes even professionally. One of my friends and I collaborated on a consulting web project together a few years ago, at her initiative. I wrote a report for another friend who was thinking about investing in the building of a private lab for the production of a malaria drug, also her initiative. Another friend--a research scientist—asked for my help in publishing two articles on which we’d collaborated during the past few years, and another friend asked me to provide photos for a scientific writing project she was working on. I have helped a teacher friend who had her grammar school class write letters to me to ask about what’s involved in becoming a scientist. I organized a tour of my hospital laboratory for the high school class of another teacher friend, so that the students could get an idea of what it’s like to work in a lab on a daily basis, and to see the techniques and instrumentation we use in our research. A photographer friend asked me to model for her a couple of times, and has taken some nice portrait photos of me that I have used professionally. Another photographer friend designs and formats the text and covers of my published books.When I think back over the years, we have helped each other in different ways. We’ve stepped up to the plate for each other and gotten involved in interesting projects as a result, all of which have enriched our lives, personally and professionally.

I want to acknowledge these women (of all ages) who are a part of my life and who have enriched it beyond measure. I consider each of them friends, including those who are family. They come from all walks of life, and all of them are wonderfully different and talented women. Many of them have combined work and family life with all of the attendant difficulties and joys. Without naming them personally, I can list their various lines of work here:

1. at least ten scientific researchers, one of whom is an author and consultant , another who is an author and owner of a scientific publishing company
2. two photographers and small business owners
3. two social workers, one who heads a non-profit educational organization
4. two teachers (one retired)
5. supermarket head cashier
6. president of a city university
7. global marketing manager for a scientific company
8. fundraising director
9. a minister
10. conflict resolution counselor, author and coach
11. part-time educational and programming consultant
12. university administrator
13. owner of a scientific consulting company
14. three doctors
15. hospital and health professional
16. soil conservationist
17. paralegal
18. computer services manager
19. writer and editor
20. national scientific liaison manager
21. three librarians
22. obstetrics nurse
23. horseback riding instructor
24. three senior research technicians (now retired; all women in their 70s, one of whom works as a consultant)
25. nurse (retired)
26. apartment superintendant (now retired; a family friend who is in her early 80s)
27. tour guide (now retired, 85 years old)
28. secretary (was my oldest friend from my first job, who passed away last year at the age of 86)

Society should be celebrating the lives of real women in all of the different media formats, instead of focusing ad nausea on worn-out celebrities and celebrity wannabes. There are, dare I say it, things to write about other than the size of this or that celebrity’s engagement ring or who had a wardrobe malfunction. Who cares? Is this what makes women interesting? The answer is no. That’s my take on it, and that’s my challenge to society at large. Celebrate the interesting women--the women on my list. They are the women who are advancing the world, one small step at a time, and they’re doing it without a lot of fanfare.

The great divide

I notice more and more how purportedly classless (egalitarian) societies, like the one I live in, struggle with the reality that not all of its members enjoy materialistic equality. It becomes more apparent to me each day, especially as this country gets richer due to its oil money. All individuals living in this society have gotten richer during the past ten years, yes, but some individuals have achieved a higher level of wealth than others. Not all people make the same amounts of money nor do they own the same numbers and types of homes and cars. They are not equal in the materialistic sense, no matter how hard the government tries to make it so. And that will likely always be the case. A perfect utopian society on this earth seems unlikely (the notion has been around for many years)—a society where all members have exactly the same level of wealth, status, or material possessions. A society where all members have equal opportunities for public education and the same legal rights is achievable. But there is no guarantee that even if all children have the same opportunities from birth, that they will grow up to earn exactly the same amounts of money, or be similarly educated, ambitious, talented, hard-working, creative, innovative, or that they will behave in similar ways in any given situation. Society consists of unique individuals, and that uniqueness begins at birth. People will utilize their talents and gifts in different ways compared to all others around them, and that will inevitably lead to different career choices with the resultant income disparities. Not all types of work are rewarded with similar incomes; perhaps that reality lies in the future. Imagine a society with no salary differences whatsoever. That would change the way in which education is viewed, as well as how career progression is viewed.

But it is the definitions of rich and wealth in the materialistic sense that interest me. One hundred people gathered together in one room might not be able to come up with a working definition of ‘rich’ or ‘wealth’. Some people will define ‘rich’ or ‘wealth’ as owning one home and one car, whereas others consider themselves rich if they are able to rent an apartment and not own a car, but perhaps use their money to travel, while others require a home and a summer cottage, and several cars and maybe even a boat in order to feel as though they have achieved the requisite level of wealth. Some people will say that they are rich if they have freedom to do as they like and can come and go as they please; they may not be interested in owning many material possessions. So what then is the definition of ‘poor’? Individuals who rent an apartment and do not own a car, a vacation cottage or an expensive boat—are they to be considered poor if they are content with their economic situation? Can society force that definition upon them? To me these are difficult questions to ponder, let alone answer.

There seems to be a lot more envy now in society than I can remember from when I grew up. You need only look at a newspaper to understand that; if the rich open their mouths and tell the less rich how to live or what to do, or if they in any way go overboard in terms of flaunting their wealth, the less rich will tell them in no uncertain terms to shut up or try to take them down a few notches, again using the media to do so. But they do it in a way that smacks of envy.

Perhaps globalization and a relentless media have made us more aware of the haves and the have-nots. We again need only turn to the media for them to tell us how the rich live; all the gory details are there for our perusal. The danger is that constant immersion in the media-created focus on wealth fosters a false sense of reality--that all people can achieve wild levels of wealth, if only…….And who knows if this way of thinking has contributed to high levels of personal debt—in the craze to have as many material possessions as possible, even if it means personal ruin.

Clearspeak

It happened again—I was reading the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten and flipping through the Culture section, when I came to the book review section. I came across a review of a new book by an (American) author. The nationality of the author doesn’t really matter for this discussion; what is important was that this was his third book, that his first book had been an amazing debut, and that it had sold very well. It had also been well-received critically. The small headline that introduced the actual review provided the following message (translated more or less literally from Norwegian): ‘only the mountains are the same as in the first book; nothing else achieves the heights that were achieved in the first novel’. Clear enough message, I thought—I expected to find a negative tone throughout the review. But no, quite the opposite. The reviewer used his column to praise the book, and ended his review by saying the following: ‘it is almost unthinkable that (the author) would be able to achieve the heights that he did with his debut novel, but with his new book he has shown that he didn’t just have one good book in him. This book is undoubtedly one of the year’s most important American books’. Why did this review irritate me, when it was in fact well-written and positive to the author? Because these types of reviews or newspaper articles are not uncommon these days. Because the introductory headline and the review itself were at odds with each other. Because the headline creates the anticipation of a negative review, when in fact it was not negative at all.

This is how I would have written the introductory headline: ‘despite the fact that the third novel does not live up to the standards set by the debut novel, the author’s third book is very good and will be one of the year’s most important books’. Nothing more and nothing less. You then know what you have to deal with when you read the review. Your expectations of praise and some criticism will be met. You will get a clear message of what the reviewer meant about the book.

I look for Clearspeak in most conversations and in most of what I read and listen to in the media these days. Unfortunately, I find that Clearspeak is in short supply. What is Clearspeak, you wonder. Clearspeak is the opposite of Obscurespeak, and even of Newspeak (a la George Orwell). It is the ability to express one’s thoughts and meanings clearly, so that your listeners and readers understand you. It is the ability to use words and vocabulary in an honest and direct (not necessarily politically-correct) way, again so that your listeners and readers understand you. It is not about being politically-correct or cowardly or any of those things. Clearspeak says—'I have an opinion or a specific meaning about something and I feel comfortable with expressing it clearly. I want you to know what I think'. Obscurespeak says—'I have an opinion or a specific meaning about something but I feel uncomfortable with expressing it clearly, so I will introduce a certain amount of confusion so that readers and listeners cannot ‘attack’ me for my opinions and meanings afterward. I’m not sure I really want you to know what I think. I am afraid'. Obscurespeak is obfuscation. It is also Safespeak—it protects the writer or speaker from being taken down or attacked, because your readers and listeners are too busy trying to figure out what it was you meant by what you wrote or said. Obscurespeak is the new language of huge bureaucracies as well, because if the average ordinary person actually started to understand what is written in the rules, regulations, tax laws, import laws, etc. he or she might actually start to ask some clear and direct questions that politicians wouldn’t want or be able to answer. Understanding how society and the government work might lead to grass-root revolutions and to an overthrow of politicians and bureaucrats who worship Obscurespeak and even Newspeak. Perhaps that day is coming and that is what they’re afraid of.

Ten Things I’m Concerned About (a la David Letterman)

10. Triple booking—the new trend among some ‘cool’ people. They say yes to three dinner or party invitations for the same evening, and then choose the one that’s ‘coolest’ (translated—populated by people just like them), without informing the other two that they’re not coming. Isn’t this just plain rude behavior? Can’t we call a spade a spade?

9. Do we need to text when we could call?

8. I feel like I am being stalked by disturbed people every time someone walking behind me is talking loudly on their cell phone and walking up to within inches of me. Are you talking to me? Whatever happened to truly private conversations?

7. The sad state of TV programming: the irony being that now we have HD-TVs that give us gorgeous details but there are only reality shows to watch. It’s like getting all dressed up with no place to go. How did reality trash TV get to where it’s gotten? Who watches it?

6. The media’s desperate and obsessive focus on updating us on trite celebrities and their banal lives: Lindsey Lohan, can you please go to jail already or wherever it is you’re supposed to be. And Kim Kardashian? Can anyone tell me why this woman is famous? Can anyone tell me why Snooki is famous?

5. Poorly-written newspaper articles, especially about science. If society is to understand what scientists do, journalists need to write better articles about them and what they do, especially in Europe. American science journalists can out-compete European science journalists any day. 

4. How come Wall Street determines the health of an economy? What do stock brokers do all day except buy and sell stock? Is this is a real job? Are they producing anything of worth? Why do they get to determine the fate of companies?

3. The political scene in the USA—where are the good candidates in the Republican Party? The ones that have appeared so far just plain scare me.

2. Obama, get moving and take a stand—you have some good ideas but you’re stuck. Tell it like it is.

1. Political correctness is killing us as a democratic society. We need to be able to say what we mean in a civilized way without fear of retribution, attack, or ridicule. We should be able to discuss and debate and shake hands afterwards. The real messages are not getting out.

A useful website--Views and News from Norway

http://www.newsinenglish.no/

A very interesting little website--Norwegian news stories translated to English, for those of you who might want to read what is going on in this country.

Advice about writing from Cory Doctorow

An interesting article about how not to get distracted while writing by the writer Cory Doctorow. I tend to agree more with him than with Jonathan Franzen, if for no other reason than Cory's life seems to be more like my own, filled with interruptions and distractions at work (while I am doing my scientific writing) and filled with daily-life things when I am at home. I do as he does--I find at least a half hour each day to write--in most cases a blog post, but sometimes a poem or the beginning of an essay or a story. His philosophy of writing one page a day works for me. But he is remarkably productive as a full-time writer. I am just writing in my free hours outside of my regular job and manage one blog post per day or every other day. I wonder what it would be like to be a writer full-time. I'm betting there'd be lots of deadlines and that the occurrence of writer's block might hit more often than one would like. Writer's block has happened to me a few times this past year and it's not pleasant. It feels like everything has dried up and that there aren't any more ideas and that there never will be. Of course this is not true, but it feels that way when you are experiencing it. The best thing to do is to just relax and do something else--take a walk, read a book, watch a good movie, have a good conversation. In this way, your mind gets stimulated again and then it's possible to be in touch with some new ideas. There has to be inspiration. If you write, you cannot live in a vacuum, cannot seal yourself off from the rest of the world all the time. But it helps to have some alone time when you are actually writing and need quiet time. But some of my better poems have been written on subways, trains and buses, in the midst of throngs of people and lots of noise, because I was watching the life outside the windows go whizzing by and it triggered a thought which then triggered another thought. And so it goes......

Here is the link to Cory Doctorow's article:
http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2009/01/cory-doctorow-writing-in-age-of.html

Enjoy.

Just give me the facts, ma'am

As many of you know from this blog, I have managed to reduce my TV watching time quite substantially over the past two years. I still do watch a good movie on the cable channels from time to time, but my interest in following particular TV shows, series, or the news has diminished. I would like to blame this mostly on reality TV, and yes, this type of programming has definitely pushed me away from TV. It has infested nearly every major TV channel, both here and in the USA. But my current stance also has to do with the level of credibility concerning news reporting in the media generally, because I have also lost a good deal of interest in newspapers as well. I just don’t believe most of what is presented to me as news/facts anymore. I get irritated by so many things—but primarily by the loss of objectivity in news presentation. I am reminded of what Fox Mulder used to say on the X-files—‘Trust no one”. It’s how I feel about most of the news media these days. They have an ‘agenda’ that they want to push. European and Norwegian news agencies have their agendas, as do American agencies. We could discuss for hours, maybe even days, what those individual agendas are. Suffice it to say that sometimes they’re pushed right up into your face in this country as well as on CNN, so that you cannot ignore them no matter how hard you try. And you can’t stick your head in the sand like an ostrich because the minute you stick your head back up again you’re bombarded with ‘truths’, superficial reporting, politically-correct commentators and people telling you how to think and feel. If you want to make these things part of a debate program, that’s fine with me, because that’s where they belong. But don’t sell this approach to me as objective news reporting, because it’s not. And don’t get me started about the tabloid-like headlines that are supposed to hook me into reading newspaper articles. Even one of the best newspapers in Norway, Aftenposten, has resorted to using such headlines to reel in readers (and advertisers), e.g. in the vein of ‘We love to buy (something or other)’—a folksy approach that just doesn’t work for me on its front page. Furthermore, I am tired of reading and hearing journalists’ opinions about major news stories—just give me the facts please and not opinions. If I want their opinions, I’ll ask for them or even Google them if I need to. But no, it seems as though I cannot find respite anywhere.

I grew up reading The New York Times newspaper, because that’s what my parents read, in addition to the local Tarrytown newspaper that updated us on all the local happenings. But The New York Times was special. It was a real newspaper, with solid, in-depth reporting. The front page was the ‘hard news’ page and you either liked that or you didn’t. But you knew it was there and you knew that the facts were being reported on the front page. I guess that might have been boring to some people. So I decided to check out the front page of The New York Times recently, to see if it was still the ‘real news’ newspaper I remember from my youth. And as far as I can determine, it is, at least from the ‘front page’. That was heartening. But still, I have become so skeptical that credibility and truth are going to disappear at a moment’s notice that my motto remains—‘trust no one’, at least in the context of the news media. I check out many different sources now, newspapers, TV, radio, blogs, and online sites in order to get the ‘complete’ story. So in one sense, the superficial reporting of news has had a positive effect—I now am willing to use whatever time is needed to find truth and credibility, especially if one or two news stories particularly interest me.