On Cheap Thrills and Guilty Pleasures

I grew up in the halcyon days of family television in the 60’s.  Our family would gather around the television each evening after dinner and watch our favorite prime time shows until it was time for bed.  Each fall we would await the new lineups with eager anticipation.  Some of my favorites:  Man from U.N.C.L.E, I Spy, Secret Agent, Bonanza, Walt Disney Hour, Get Smart, Green Acres, Petticoat Junction.  I could go on and on because there were SO MANY!

A few years ago, in a moment of misguided nostalgia, I had Netflix deliver the first season of Man from U.N.C.L.E.  I watched the pilot episode for about 10 minutes and then put the DVD back in its package and out for the mail.  It was unbearable, even with all the pent-up desire to reminisce and relive my youth.

I was essentially a TV addict as a child.  Fortunately, my interest in sports and girls (not always in that order) overcame that addiction in late high school.  By college I was clean, and for many years I rarely watched TV.  Other hobbies and passions seemed to have more value to me. 

TV slowly crept back into my life after marriage, but by this time I was a bit more discerning in my viewing habits and very conscious of a certain hierarchy in my choices of entertainment.  Karen, who had rarely watched TV in her youth, and I had a few TV shows that we indulged in over the years - Cheers and ER come to mind – but we made a decision to ditch TV completely once our daughters were born.

Like a former alcoholic, I am now a bit self-righteous about my choices of entertainment, though I am in this, as in most things, a bit of a hypocrite.  At some point I began to demean much of mass media as being a ‘cheap thrill’.  I had become a snob, believing that serious literature, art films, and more sophisticated music (not pop!) were the only media worth one’s valuable time.

This conversion, though generally a salutary development in my life, came with a nasty side effect.  Whenever I engage in any activity that does not measure up to my somewhat arbitrary set of standards, I feel guilty.  After having only watched movies for many years, Karen and I began to sample some of the modern television series a few years ago.  We have seen several that we enjoyed tremendously – Breaking Bad, The Wire, Mad Men – to name a few.  But once we opened that Pandora’s Box, the question of how much TV is bad looms large in my life again.

Is it better to read a good book than to watch TV?  Is it better to watch an artsy foreign film than a Hollywood blockbuster with ever-more-spectacular special effects?  Is it better to play guitar or take a walk than to do any of these?  How many guilty pleasures should we allow ourselves?  Is there really a hierarchy of entertainment or is it all self-delusion?  Is spending all day playing video games no less virtuous than hiking in the mountains?

I suspect I am a bit obsessive about these questions.  I am not sure why I struggle with guilt when I spend time doing anything that I don’t view as ‘worthwhile’.  Perhaps it is my regret over a somewhat misspent youth – a sense that I could have accomplished more in life if I had been less self-indulgent.  Or perhaps it is my ever-increasing awareness of my mortality and with it a need to make every moment count.

The Joys of the Learning Curve

About five months ago I started learning how to play the banjo.  I had an old banjo from my middle school years when I was under the spell of a short infatuation with The Kingston Trio.  I took lessons for about 8 months until a more profound infatuation with high school athletics lured me away.  The poor banjo sat idle (or more accurately, hung idle, since it now adorns the wall of my music room!) for 50 plus years. 

I have been playing guitar off and on for much of my life and have acquired a modest level of competence – no Eric Clapton -  but I am capable of accompanying myself and others and performing short, mediocre solos.  I have always liked the sound of a banjo, so I decided to pick up my old banjo and use the rich lode of Internet lesson videos and websites to teach myself.

There is nothing quite like the first part of the learning curve.  When you start from zero, every advance is exhilarating!  If there is sincere and consistent effort, then there will shortly be a noticeable and pleasurable reward, no matter what one’s natural talent may be.  This acquisition of skill is terrifically exciting – like discovering a new world.  And at first it is quite consistent.  The more effort you put in, the more skill you acquire.  In many cases, it may even seem exponential in its growth because, of course, compared to a starting situation of no knowledge or capability at all, even small accomplishments loom large and excite the imagination.

But eventually the first plateau is reached, and the soaring first flight into the new world ends.  There will be more progress, but it will come in smaller, less exciting steps, and it will require longer periods of hard work where there is little visible improvement.  There will still be very tangible rewards, but not at the accelerated pace of that early, sublime encounter.

It is tempting in life to engage in many passionate embraces with new occupations, to become as the old saying goes, ‘a jack of all trades and master of none’.  There are so many interesting things in this world, and the urge to investigate new activities and develop new skills is hard to resist.

But it is also a good habit to develop some passions more completely, rather than simply fly from one to the next once the initial ardor is quenched.  There is deep satisfaction in having worked long and hard on a skill and slowly developing it over time.  However, there is no assurance that you will become a master.  In the modern online world, where we are confronted with incomparable examples of mastery in every possible category, it is easy to become dispirited and abandon a quest because we suspect we will never attain those levels of expertise. 

The 10,000 hour rule, popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers, implied that we can obtain mastery if we are willing to devote ourselves to a project.  But in recent years, this claim has been debunked as only part of the formula for mastery of a discipline.  And who has 10,000 hours anyway?  Few of us will become superstars in anything we attempt.  If our goal is to find fame or fortune, then we are likely on a quixotic journey. But the slow, steady progress that is the necessary result of any good faith effort in an activity is reward enough if we cast vanity aside.

As in most things in life, a balance of acquiring many new skills and committing more profoundly to a few is probably the best approach.   Still, I do love the first heady joys of the learning curve.  They seem to be in perfect synchrony with my somewhat restless spirit!

A Sensible Approach to Reducing Abortions

One of the most passionate issues in the culture wars is the question of how the government should legislate abortion.  Abortion has been legal in the U.S. since 1973, when the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision was handed down.  The decision launched bitter disputes between pro-choice and pro-life groups and has had a significant impact on political and judicial life in the U.S. since that time.

What makes this topic so divisive is its intersection with religious, personal liberty and moral questions. To many religious people who feel that a fetus is already a child of God, it is incomprehensible to allow an abortion.  To many others, it is incomprehensible that the state can legislate any control over a woman’s body, including its reproductive organs.

Here are some basic facts about abortion before and after Roe vs. Wade:

• Abortions occurred in large number (estimates vary but range between several hundred thousand and well over a million) before 1973.  Wealthy and middle class women could always get abortions by traveling to a place where they were legal.  Poor women obtained abortions too, but generally through providers with limited medical expertise and/or facilities, and often suffered serious health consequences.
• The history of abortion is closely related to the history of contraception and sexual practices.  It was only in 1965 that the supreme court struck down laws against distributing contraception to married couples, and only in 1972 to unmarried couples!
• The primary quasi-official statistics on the number of induced abortions per year, which the CDC tracks from state-submitted data, are
• 1972 (pre-decision) – 587,000
• 1973 – 616,000
•  Increasing steadily to a peak in 1990 at 1,429,000
• Decreasing steadily thereafter to 2017 level of 616,000
• Public opinions on abortion vary year to year but have generally shown that a majority support some legal abortion at least through the first trimester of pregnancy.
• Individual states have enacted laws to restrict abortions and/or make it more difficult for providers to offer abortions.  Some of these laws have been struck down by the judiciary, but they have definitely made abortions more difficult in some states.

There is debate about why abortions have declined substantially from 1990 to the present.  The availability of contraceptives, particularly long-term IUDs, and the efforts to publicize birth control methods and teach sex education are certainly major factors.  It is also argued by pro-life groups that the restrictions in some states have reduced the number of abortions.  However, abortions have declined almost equally in both states with restrictions and those without.  The number of unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies have declined dramatically over that period.  

The rate of teen pregnancy declined from 59.9 per thousand teens in 1990 to 20.3 per thousand in 2016.  An amazing and very encouraging statistic!  This was certainly NOT due to changes in sexual practices, but due to use of contraceptives.  The U.S. still has the largest teen pregnancy rate of any developed country.  I would guess that it is primarily due to lack of sex education and availability of contraceptives, a situation we could fairly easily address.

Does anyone really want to go back to the days of back alley abortions?  Many of those who have rallied to the banner of pro-life were not around before Roe v. Wade and are not aware of how many tragic deaths and medical problems resulted from desperate attempts at abortion.  Unless we establish a draconian police state, a change in law will simply change where and how abortions occur, not whether they occur.  There might be less abortions, but probably not significantly less.  The availability now of chemical forms of abortion has changed the game and these chemicals would certainly go underground if the laws changed.  They would be easily obtained and create a new ‘drug war’ that would benefit no one. 

The obvious middle ground on the abortion issue is for all parties to avoid the emotional polemics and rally around the  common goal of reducing abortions.  We must recognize that the most realistic and effective way to accomplish this is to make contraception readily available to every woman (and man) and to encourage parents to face the facts of the current sexual culture and counsel their children on the use of contraceptives.  Sexual practices may change over time, but it is delusional to think that denying young people contraceptives will somehow result in less premarital or teen sex and the resultant abortions.

We will never completely satisfy those who think that abortion is a murderous sin that can never be allowed.  But neither should we be cavalier about abortion, for many good reasons.

The coming battles in the Supreme Court are likely to cause great emotional turmoil on all sides.  Like so many Supreme Court issues, the constitutional issues are a smokescreen and the war is really over the evolution of how people view our society, our ethics, our morals, our principles, religion and life itself.  The Supreme Court can lead or it can be dragged into the future.  Contraception, like premarital sex, is a fact of life and will never again be outlawed.  Abortion is primarily a by-product of inadequate contraception and ignorance.  Everyone wants fewer abortions – let’s work together to achieve that goal.

The Liberal Dilemma on Multi-culturalism

It is a basic tenet of liberal thinking that a multi-cultural society has many benefits and that the world should welcome the widespread, heterogeneous distribution of ethnic, racial and cultural groups.  A corollary to this is the sense that cultural and religious practices should always be respected and protected.

Since 9/11, progressives have rallied to resist the wholesale denigration of the Muslim culture by right wing antagonists. They have insisted, correctly, that Islamic terrorism is confined to an extremely small group within Islam.  They have waged a social media battle against the vile stereotypes of both Muslim and Hispanic cultures.  More recently, they have fought to prevent Trump from implementing draconian immigration and refugee policies based solely on religious or cultural affiliation.

The necessity for liberals to oppose stereotypes and misinformation from the right is clear when one reads that at one point 24% of Americans believed that President Obama was Muslim, or that an equal number believed that the U.K. or other European countries had whole regions where sharia law was practiced.

But in answering the call to oppose the wholesale condemnation of various cultures, the left has also been put in the difficult position of being reluctant to strongly advocate against some cultural characteristics or practices that are clearly undesirable.

There are basic conflicts between some elements of modern Western culture and Islamic culture.  The Pew Charitable Trust has spent years charting Muslim and Western views on various aspects of morality and culture.  The results are simultaneously encouraging and concerning.  One encouraging result was the great majority of Muslims that oppose suicide bombings, Jihad violence and Isis through the Muslim world.

Perhaps the most difficult area is the concept of freedom of religion.  Muslims favor freedom of religion by a significant majority, yet a majority in most Muslim countries are also adamant that sharia law should play a large role in society.  More shockingly, in many Muslim countries, a majority support the death penalty for apostasy (a Muslim leaving the religion) or blasphemy.  These are views and traditions that are simply not acceptable in any society, yet liberals are hesitant to speak out strongly against them for fear of contributing to the overall prejudice against Muslims.

Another major area of friction between Western and Muslim cultures is the role and treatment of women.  The tradition of women covering themselves in varying degrees is in one sense a cultural choice that one must respect, as long as it is truly the woman’s choice to do so.  However, the forced covering, and application of punishments or ostracism when a woman chooses not to cover is not an acceptable cultural tradition in modern society and even liberals must be vocal in their condemnation of such practices.  Other aspects of the limited role of women in Muslim society that are evident in some Muslim countries may in part be cultural norms that we must accept, but it is hypocritical for liberals to advocate for women’s rights in one situation and ignore them in another.

The general question of how to deal with morality is still another dividing point between some Muslim (though certainly not all) and most Western cultures.  Homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, alcohol and a variety of other ‘morality’ issues are viewed quite differently in the two cultures.  When these viewpoints are simply different cultural practices there is perhaps some friction and division, but they are certainly not irreconcilable.  However, in cultures where these behaviors are punished by law or extralegal means, such as honor killings or imprisonment, then liberals must be just as critical as they would be in judging their own societies.

The western world has only recently shed many of the same pernicious cultural and religious practices that now hamper the development of some parts of the world.  It wasn’t so long ago that we were burning heretics, condemning adulterers to death, or treating women as chattel. 

Multiculturalism can make a beautiful contribution to civilization by creating a new interwoven fabric of traditions, foods, and behavior.  We certainly do not wish for nor advocate a move toward a homogeneous society.  As liberals, we have a responsibility to dispel the cruel stereotypes and misinformation that are spread by ignorant people who react negatively to anything that is strange, unsettling or different, and thus fear the assimilation of different cultures, ethnic groups or religions.

But we must also not hesitate to speak out against aspects of any culture or religion that violate the basic human rights, freedoms and decency that have been won at great cost in the advance of human civilization.

The High-Tech Racket

Technology companies are some of the wealthiest and most successful businesses in the world.  Their executives are rich beyond all comprehension and account for much of the obscene accumulation of wealth in recent decades.

The development of computer hardware and software technologies has indeed been an amazing phenomenon and has provided significant benefit to humankind.  There have been many ingenious innovations.  But once the initial innovation is past, the ongoing business of high-tech is basically a racket, not unlike the automobile racket of the 50’s and 60’s.  The operative word is guaranteed obsolescence.  Here are some examples of how it works.

The primary software on almost all personal computers is a combination of Microsoft Windows, the operating system, and Office, the combination of office software tools that most people use – Email, Word, Excel and Powerpoint, along with a few others that very few people use.  This software runs on personal computers, made by a variety of companies such as Dell, Apple, HP, Acer and many others.

It is safe to say that a healthy percentage of the computer-using population uses their computers for the same functions today – basic office functions, Internet surfing and social media, email – as they did twenty years ago.  The word processor and spreadsheet have seen only tiny improvements in recent years and most people use the same features they used 20 or even 30 years ago.  Even the major advances in online media and streaming could be handled by much older computers and their operating systems and browsers. People could, in theory, be using the same computers and software they purchased in 1999 and have all the functionality that they need.

Instead, most of us have purchased computers every 2-4 years, paying from $400 to $1500 each time for very marginal, if any, increases in functionality.  And why have we done that?  Because the memory, storage and processing requirements for running the software have grown exponentially and require ever increasing hardware capabilities.

And why have we continued to add the software that makes our computers obsolete, which, by the way, costs quite a bit of money as well?  Because the software companies, Microsoft being the primary culprit, come out with new versions that add modest or even unwanted new features.  And once these new versions are on the market we feel compelled to purchase them in order to stay ‘current’ with the technology and to be able to interact with the world around us.

A behemoth like Microsoft is dependent on this revenue (and its obscenely high profit margins) and has, along with one other company – Apple – a monopoly on the operating system and basic software.  There are no viable competitors, thus allowing these two companies to dictate wildly extravagant pricing in relation to the effort needed to maintain and modestly upgrade this software  In recent years they have switched to a subscription service to guarantee the ongoing successful extortion of fees, even though the great majority of us uses each new version of software for exactly the same purposes and gains no benefit whatsoever from these payments.

This ecosystem of quickly obsolete hardware and software is similar to the way that General Motors and Ford conducted the automobile business in the 50’s and 60’s.  People were indoctrinated in the habit of purchasing a new car every 2 or 3 years.  That mode of automobile purchasing is still somewhat operative today, as people are easily tempted by the allure of a bright new car, but the average duration of ownership is now close to seven years and has slowly climbed over the last 70 years.

The ubiquitous smart phone is another example of the high-tech racket.  The maturity of the smart phone has now reached the point where successive generations bring very marginal additional benefit, yet the public races to purchase each new shiny version, perhaps for some prompted by the small cachet of being the early adopter, but for most simply a lemming-like response to the release of a new gadget and the endless need for more storage and power that comes with bigger photos (who needs a 10MB photo?!!), our addiction to social media and legions of apps.  At least in this market there is a reasonable level of competition.  But the guaranteed obsolescence will be more non-sensical as time goes by.

Isn’t all of this just smart business?  Doesn’t the world need this type of frenzied, unwarranted consumerism to feed the engines of commerce?  Perhaps, but one might theorize that our treasure would be better spent on other more necessary items, and that the profit from these purchases would be better spread among a vast number of smaller, modest enterprises rather than add to the bloated coffers of the software and hardware plutocrats.