Category Archives: Quandaries and Rants

The “Fear” Instinct: Danger versus Fright

One of the most insidious “instincts” we retain from earlier periods of human existence is the fear instinct, when misapplied. Some fears are justified. Many are not, or are blown out of proportion.

Like Hans Rosling, author of Factfulness, I grew up during the 1950’s and 1960’s Cold War era, back when we did “civil defense” drills for protecting ourselves in the event of a nuclear attack (spoiler alert—hiding under your elementary school desk with your hands interlaced above your head would be pretty useless against nuclear blasts or fallout). 

My nightmares back then involved not being able to find family members in time for all of us to hide in our house’s basement, the one area that might provide some minimal protection against the effects of nuclear blasts and radiation. As our societies continue to learn to deal with nuclear threats, my fear level about nuclear attack ebbs and flows.  

My fear of snakes has likewise ebbed and flowed. Much of my life has been spent where snake bites are rare and even more rarely lethal. However, during my one extended stay in an African country, where black or green mambas could inject a quickly lethal venom and sometimes were fairly well camouflaged, fear of snakes may have helped keep me alive.

Back then, I had part-time access to an aging Volkswagen beetle with a rust hole near its gas pedal. I used it to commute to the offices of an international development project I was a temporary part of. One afternoon, as I drove back to the office after a lunch break, I noticed a large black snake sidling across the road in front of me. Had it been still, I might not have registered its presence. As it was, I slammed on the brakes and pulled to the side of the road a good distance uphill from the snake. The little car I was driving might have been heavy enough to crush the snake, but I decided it would be risky to drive over it. The hole in the bottom of the car was too near my foot. Instead, I waited. Not long afterward, a heavy luxury vehicle driven by the head of the local branch of the World Bank came barreling down the hill. After the Mercedes drove over it, the snake was thoroughly crushed and dead. I proceeded, more careful thereafter to distinguish between road tar and road snakes.  

Rosling tells a story of how, when he was just starting out as a physician, his irrational fear of nuclear war badly distorted his initial reaction to an incoherent Swedish pilot with hypothermia. Afterwards, Rosling’s longish life of dealing in some fearful situations led him to a more skeptical view of most fears: “Fears that once helped keep our ancestors alive, today help keep journalists employed.” Rosling asserts, “If we look at the facts behind the headlines, we can see how the fear instinct systematically distorts what we see of the world.”  

Today is Veterans’ Day, when we honor those living and dead who have sometimes put themselves in harm’s way to help keep the rest of us safer. They get sent where most of us would fear to go. During the waning days of World War II, my Dad was stationed with the Navy in the South Pacific. He never made a fuss about being a veteran. The war he was part of did horrendous damage, but may have indirectly played a small part in reducing our fears of “others.” As some lyrics from the 1949 musical “South Pacific” taunted: “You’ve got to be taught to be afraid of people whose eyes are oddly made, and people whose skin is a different shade, you’ve got to be carefully taught…” Some of those of different shades who’d served during World War II eventually became leaders in the Civil Rights movements, including Medgar Evers and Ralph Abernathy.

Not having served in the military, I cannot speak directly to the level of fear generated by deployment in dangerous areas or by actual combat. I am deeply indebted to those whose willingness to take risks on my behalf has made my life safer. However, I suspect that military planners and leaders have sometimes put both soldiers and civilians in harm’s way unnecessarily.

Rosling concludes, “Fear can be useful, but only if it is directed at the right things. … ‘Frightening’ and ‘dangerous’ are two different things. Something frightening poses a perceived risk. Something dangerous poses a real risk. Paying too much attention to what is frightening rather than what is dangerous … creates a tragic drainage of energy in the wrong directions.” May we all, especially our military’s leaders, get better at distinguishing fright from danger.

Minding the Voting “Gap”

Roslings’ book Factfulness begins with a sword swallower. As a child, senior author Hans Rosling loved going to the circus. He was intrigued by the sword swallowers he sometimes saw there. Later, after he’d trained as a medical doctor, he learned that the anatomy of most people’s throats allows for “swallowing” a flat object by thrusting the chin forward. (Please don’t try this at home.) He began to understand that many phenomena we regard as impossible are manageable, given a set of gradually developed knowledge and skills. Throughout the rest of his work life, he tried to develop further his openness to manageable progress, along with further knowledge and skills. 

Rosling spent much of his career as a health researcher in a variety of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia. During his travels he saw over time how some areas had improved substantially in the goods and services people had access to. When he later returned to his home country of Sweden and taught local medical students, he realized that many of his students had an outmoded view of the world—thinking it consisted only of “rich” countries and “poor” ones. 

During the latter part of his career, Hans made it part of his life’s work to get people to take a more nuanced, changeable view of the range of global incomes and living conditions. The Roslings characterize the tendency we all have to simplify lots of different aspects of life (rich/poor, big family/small family, limited education/full education) as binary, with no in-between stages, focussing solely or primarily on the extremes. They call this the “gap” instinct. 

It took Hans Rosling most of two decades to help persuade the World Bank to group nations into multiple income levels, rather than just characterizing countries as either “developed,” or “developing.” He theorizes that maybe changing the misconception of an unbridgeable gap between rich and poor countries was so hard because, “…human beings have a strong dramatic instinct toward binary thinking, a basic urge to divide things into two distinct groups, with nothing but an empty gap in between.”  

If you’ve followed some of my previous blog efforts, you’re likely aware that I am very wary of the “red state/blue state” gap, among other attempts to depict the American electorate as two extremes with little or nothing in between. Our politicians and our media do us a disservice when they characterize our beliefs or voting patterns that way. Even more damaging and dangerous is the tendency to characterize anyone with a set of beliefs or a voting pattern different from ours as somehow misguided or, even worse, evil. 

I don’t know how to counter this particular American “gap” tendency entirely—after all, our country has had the same two major political parties for about 150 years  (though what each party emphasizes or claims to believe has changed over time). To some extent, we all need to “clump” individuals into groups, especially when we are talking about large populations. There are over 8 billion humans currently alive, so the effort to see each human individual “whole” is beyond even the most sophisticated analysis. However, we can resist the tendency to reduce every issue, every grouping, to just a binary choice. 

Some other countries already practice one small step in the direction of more nuanced voting patterns:  as of 2014, the CIA World Fact Book listed 22 countries with a total population of nearly 750 million where voting is required of citizens over the age of 18. Most widely known among these is Australia, where, if you fail to participate in an election, you will be liable for a small fine. Brazil, with over 200 million people, also requires voting, as do Costa Rica, Greece, Mexico, and Thailand, among others. Practicing democracy requires constructive engagement, and voting, made as convenient and easy as practical, is one measure of that engagement. Requiring everyone to vote doesn’t guarantee a 100% turnout, but it is something of an incentive. It can help reduce electoral polarization, especially in primary or off-year elections when U.S. turnout has often been weak, with mostly the more extreme partisans at either end of the political spectrum bothering to show up at the polls.

Other voting practices that can reduce either/or thinking may involve such things as multi-member districts, rank choice voting (sometimes called “instant run-offs”), non-partisan primaries, open primaries (allowing votes for candidates of other parties than the one you are registered in), ballot initiatives and referenda, and independent redistricting commissions. None are perfect tools. In the U.S., few have been tried at the national level. Multiple localities and states have experimented with a variety of these measures. Emphasizing local voting and local elections may be a partial antidote to our current fixation with officials at the national level. Further experimentation might help reduce partisan wrangling and government gridlock.   

While the “gap” instinct in characterizing voters and voting patterns may provide a way station in our journey toward more complete understanding, it’s a very fruitless place to get stuck.   

Taming the Urgency Instinct

This instinct, out of ten harmful perspectives mentioned in the 2018 book Factfulness, is the one the Roslings tackle last. It’s also one that gives me a lot of trouble. During the few days’ lull between this past Tuesday’s election and the crescendo of year-end fundraising appeals that begin to fill my postal and email in boxes this time of year, perhaps I can further tamp down my tendency to concentrate on “quick fixes.” Some problems have festered for decades, if not centuries. There may even be some whose contours are already getting less dire.  

Most of us have sometimes been lured by advertising and/or public pronouncements of “now or never.” When I was a teenager,  teen pregnancy was considered a big problem. Back then, one of the era’s most popular music idols recorded a new English lyric to an earlier Italian song. Elvis had me and many of my classmates swooning, though we might have been pretty hazy on what “be mine” meant: 

“It’s now or never, come hold me tight, 
Kiss me, my darling, be mine tonight–
Tomorrow will be too late,
It’s now or never, my love won’t wait.”

The testosterone-driven urgency of this 1961 lyric did not boost efforts to promote sexual responsibility among impressionable teens. However, Elvis was more echo than cause of an epidemic of post-World War II teen childbearing. The rate of teen pregnancies had peaked in 1957 at an estimated 96.3 births per 1,000 young women aged 15 through 19. It then began to decline. By 1986, it had fallen to 50.2.  (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45184) The rate has since dropped even further, registering a historic low of 13.1 in 2023. Many successive studies confirm the negative impacts of teen births: “Adolescent childbearing is associated with significant social, health, and financial risks for teens, their families, and society more broadly.” 

Perhaps mothers (and fathers) of teenagers have over time come up with more effective ways to impress upon their daughters (and sons) the dangers of this particular “now or never” argument. Perhaps teens have gotten better at assessing risks.

Lately, most of the “now or never” appeals I’ve been getting involve either 

1) the need to reduce food insecurity or 
2) the dire consequences if we elect candidates of the “other” political party.  

1) It’s true that confusion and ongoing changes to SNAP benefits (also known as “food stamps”) for millions of low and moderate income Americans have temporarily increased food insecurity in many places. To compensate, food pantries, non-profits that provide meals, and food rescue organizations have all stepped up their fundraising and distribution efforts to mitigate negative impacts in the U.S.  It is also true that too many people throughout the world lack reliable access to healthy, nutritious food. Heartrending videos of ongoing hunger and starvation in Gaza and in Sudan can make us want to do something, anything, right away, to reduce the harm. 

What gets less attention are strides that continue to be made in producing sufficient food globally.  Per a recent report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: “Over the past six decades, world production of crops, livestock, and aquaculture commodities grew from a gross value of $1.1 trillion to $4.3 trillion (2015 dollars). … As global agricultural productivity has risen, fewer natural and environmental resources per unit of agricultural production have been used.” (https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/september/global-changes-in-agricultural-production-productivity-and-resource-use-over-six-decades

A decade or so after my Elvis phase, I listened to another singer, Harry Chapin, as he pitched the importance of helping solve the hunger crisis. Harry was convinced that world hunger was a solvable problem—more a distribution issue than overall scarcity. An organization he helped found, WhyHunger, still exists and is working in multiple countries to help reduce food insecurity. A similar group, The Hunger Project, works with a slightly different focus but similar goals. Related groups such as Drawdown, working to reduce the impacts of climate change, point to the current waste in our global food systems as a potential source of both increased food security and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Reliable estimates put current global food waste at about 1/3 of all food produced.

2) Ever since the 2000 election cycle, I’ve gotten increasing numbers of urgent solicitations from political candidates and committees. Not all, but most requests want to persuade me that the opposing candidate or party is venal if not downright evil. They do little to explain how their candidate(s) might make conditions better, but concentrate on how their opponent(s) will make things worse. After several years of such solicitations from one party, I got so annoyed that I changed my voter registration to “no party affiliation.” Unfortunately, that just produced more requests—now from “both” sides. 

I don’t deny that much in our current political system cries out for reform. What I do question is whether replacing one set of naysayers with a different set of “nattering nabobs of negativism” would improve the situation. Per a recently edited Wikipedia article on “divided government in the United States”  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States), the U.S. has had roughly equal periods of divided and “unified” government since our current two political parties coalesced in 1857. There have been about 76 years when the Executive branch (the Presidency) was led by a different party than at least one house of the Legislative branch (the Congress). There were 74 years when a single party controlled both the executive and legislative branches. It’s not clear to me whether either set of periods was substantially better at governing the country.  

https://whyhunger.org http://thehungerproject.org http://drawdown.org

My “urgency instinct” is likely to kick in to some extent this giving season. I will likely make additional donations to food rescue organizations to reduce current food insecurity. Once the next election season ramps up, I may make small campaign contributions or volunteer for a local candidate.  However, I’ll continue to use whatever time is left to me to move away from “now OR never” toward “some now AND some later.” May you similarly use your material and spiritual resources. Happy Thanksgiving!  

Power in Walking, Power in Listening, Power in Quiet

My aging body performs better and heals faster if I walk a good bit every day. In recent weeks, some of my walks have had a dual purpose—maintaining fitness and also helping support the democratic institutions on which our government is built. Last Saturday, I was one of millions who took to the streets as part of “No Kings” protests throughout the U.S. The atmosphere at the event I attended was festive. It made the roughly 2 mile walk go quickly and lessened any tiredness on a fairly hot day. I was careful to stay hydrated. I enjoyed looking at hand-made signs that were a big part of the event. Though I wished some people’s protest signs, banners, and inflatable figures less closely mirrored the disdainful rhetoric we often hear from our current national executive, I could identify with some of their justifiable anger. Some of the younger generations in my family work in government. They have been repeatedly buffeted and challenged by the sometimes haphazard, sometimes vengeful demands, firings, and shutdowns that seem to be prominent tools of this administration. 

Earlier this month, I spent time alternately sitting silently in courtrooms and walking the halls of the U.S. federal courthouse nearest me, bearing mute witness to increasingly harsh, sometimes arbitrary processing and deportation of asylum seekers who show up for their asylum hearings. I have few illusions that either of my protest walks will influence policy in the short term. Still, putting my body where my convictions are in non-violent, non-threatening ways seems appropriate.

Because I arrived early for “No Kings,” I had time to meander among booths set up by various environmental and civic groups near the starting point of the march. I signed a petition or two. I noticed what especially galling aspects of government mismanagement or overreach were being most prominently disputed. One new-to-me civic proponent was one I almost missed. A single person staffed a small table with a tented sign, “The Listening Project.” I walked up to him and asked what he was doing. 

“I’m trying to provide an example of good listening. Listening is really important,” he told me. “Many of us are not very good listeners, but practicing good listening can become a habit, like brushing your teeth every day. If you think of listening as a muscle, it’s one that gets stronger with practice. “ 

Given this implicit permission, I proceeded to talk about how frustrated I felt at the current political stand-offs in our country. It sometimes has seemed to me, I explained, that all this talk of “polarization” tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He neither agreed or disagreed explicitly, but did note that he’d had chances to listen to people from all along the political spectrum. Sometimes, he observed, listening to people whose opinions might be quite militant to begin with resulted in their softening their stances as they felt heard. Listening can be powerful, he reiterated.  

Most of us live in places and spaces that have gotten noisier over the years—airplane engines, traffic, sirens, leaf blowers, not to mention beeps and chirps from our electronics. It can be harder and harder even to hear each other, let alone listen. Too often, we compound the problem by ramping up our own noise output. So we need a third power, the power of quiet. 

In researching this essay, I ran an internet search on “rising ambient noise levels in the U.S.” I found a website for an annual event that I hadn’t known existed, “International Noise Awareness Day.” (Its 31st iteration will occur on April 29, 2026.) I clicked on a link to an interview with author Chris Berdik about his recently published Clamor. The author had submitted his book proposal before the pandemic, but wound up doing much of his research and writing during pandemic-related shutdowns. Alongside its tragedies, the pandemic measurably lowered ambient noise levels in the world’s noisiest places. Berdik argues forcefully that noise is one of the stressors we have not yet paid enough attention to, that hearing loss is only part of the damage caused by too much noise too often.  

To walk, to listen, to be quiet—three powers often overlooked. May we choose more often to walk together, to listen better to each other, and to find peace in quiet, both within and without.  

In Praise of Libraries

To me, libraries are among the unsung heroes of our societal institutions. They typically get taken for granted until something goes wrong, or the budget goes short. I depend on our public libraries for much more than books. When I visit a library branch, I often get to observe all different ages and economic levels, from toddlers to dowagers with pearls to homeless folks in well worn jeans. I get to check out both nourishing fiction and varied non-fiction. Nearly every subject imaginable is covered, along with the entire spectrum of political views. I can browse the latest newspapers and magazines. I can do Internet research on one of the computer terminals typically available for patron use. Most library buildings provide community meeting spaces, often making community rooms available to civic and non-profit groups for free or at minimal cost. Public libraries are among our most vital “third spaces,” neutral zones, neither work nor home, for getting recharged. 

As one librarian recently told me, “Libraries are among the few remaining spaces where you can hang out without being expected to buy anything.” Libraries help combat the loneliness that can worsen the mental and physical health of seniors.  

Photo of a Carnegie-Endowed Public Library

When in 2021 I arrived at my current home town as part of a cross-country move, libraries were still closed due to covid restrictions.  A library-related quote from a lean time in my young adulthood came back to me: “Libraries will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no libraries.” Now, no longer cash-strapped, I was bereft of a major source of information and entertainment without library access. I very much missed the peaceable, low-stress interactions these venues had provided pre-pandemic. I appreciated the many creative ways libraries had adapted to provide what services they safely could during pandemic lockdowns. Once our central library reopened, I hurried to get a library card and to begin visiting and checking out materials. 

A while later, once our local branch reopened, I signed up as a library volunteer. Through volunteer hours and small-scale donations, I do my bit to support library programming. Nearly all our library branches have volunteers. We assist with day-to-day functioning and sometimes provide fundraising help through book sales and craft fairs. The more I volunteer, the more I appreciate the work, both paid and unpaid, that’s required to help keep our community well balanced and well informed, with access to the reliable information that helps citizenship flourish.

For over seventy years, ever since my grandmother first began taking me to story hours at our nearest library, public libraries have been a lifeline for me. The monthly library jaunts Granny and I took enriched me both intellectually and emotionally. Later, libraries helped me navigate term papers and college research assignments. During stressful times, they provided resource materials and outlets for harmlessly venting some of my frustrations. (My husband once joked that he’d know to start worrying if he saw me reading a murder mystery with an on-call computer programmer as the victim.)

In 2025, budget constraints are again threatening the health of many library systems, both urban and rural. Our city’s initial budget proposal for the next fiscal year projected cuts of about ten percent to the library system’s current allocation. It called for systemwide closures two days a week, regardless of branch patronage levels. It didn’t distinguish, among its thirty-seven branches, those in lower income areas where libraries are most crucial as a community resource.

Libraries can and often do provide the “ounce of prevention” that helps reduce the “pound of cure” required via police patrols, court costs, and emergency services. Those of us who are library partisans need to become better at touting the benefits of public libraries, intellectual, emotional, and societal. (Hence this blog post and multiple letters and emails to my local public officials.) 

When I walk past our local library branch the first weekend of each month and notice the temporary flag announcing “Used Book Sale Today,” I feel a small glow. Long may such flags wave! Long may public libraries flourish!   

Other “One Percents”

As wealth and income gaps in the U.S. widen, complaints grow about “the top 1%” economically. We suspect the very wealthy of using tax loopholes, unfair competition, lobbying, abuse of public office, and various government policies to further enrich themselves while many of the rest of us languish. 

A one percent figure is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff, but can be useful shorthand for “a small proportion” in any given field. Percentages for nearly everything also may change over time. Thinking about wealthy “one percenters” got me to wondering about other examples of contemporary low percentages. Below, then, are some other “one percents” in the U.S. and globally: farmers, legal (and illegal) immigrants, redheads, intersex persons, Icelanders. 

Way back when the first U.S. census was taken in 1790, about 90% of the country’s roughly 4 million people were farmers. Over many decades, population increased and farms generally consolidated. Most became more highly mechanized. The number of farms dwindled over time, along with the proportion of farmers. At the latest U.S. agricultural census, in 2022, only 1.2% of the U.S. labor force were farmers, albeit very productive ones. (Domestic farmers produce over 85% of the food and beverages purchased in the United States.  The U.S. is the world’s leading exporter of corn and rice by volume, and has generally been the world’s leading exporter of soybeans by value.)  

Our “country of immigrants” has seen vast changes in its levels of immigration. One measure of legal immigration is the number of “green cards” issued for new Legal Permanent Residents. In 1820, the first year to register immigration status, only 8,400 new  LPR’s were admitted. Then, our total population was about 9.6 million, so registered immigrants accounted for less than 0.1% of Americans. During the 19th century, immigration levels increased, reaching an initial peak in 1854. That year, 427,800 LPR’s were admitted to our country. Because since 1820, we’d added new states and increased our total population to over 23 million people, the 1854 LPR proportion was between 1 and 2% of the total population at the time. Still, that year’s number of LPR’s was an over 50-fold increase from the 1820 figure. 

Twentieth century U.S. immigration reached an all-time low in 1933 during the Great Depression, with just 23,100 LPR’s among a total population of over 125 million, less than 0.02%. Until after the end of World War II, U.S. immigration rates stayed very low. An all-time high in legal immigration came in 1991, when over 1.8 million LPR’s were admitted, somewhat less than 1% of our then total population of about 250 million. (source for historic immigration figures: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents?width=850&height=850&iframe=true). 

Most estimates of the number of “illegals” in the U.S., immigrants whose documentation is either missing or invalid, range between 10 and 15 million. Reliable numbers are hard to establish. However, even at the high end, this is less than 5% of the U.S. 2020 census population of over 331 million. 

I was born a redhead, one among a roughly estimated 4% of the U.S. population. Until fairly recently, I was the only known auburn-haired child in our extended family. My grandparents sometimes recalled a distant cousin who maybe had red hair like me. Generally my family liked my red hair. However, once I started school, I got mild teasing from some blond or darker haired classmates.

As gender identity debates continue to roil our “culture wars,” I recently learned of a category new to me, the poorly understood phenomenon of “intersex.” Being intersex is definitely biological, not a choice. It begins in the womb. As fetuses, intersex individuals acquire some genital and sex-linked characteristics of both female and male. Young woman-with-balls Emily Quinn is among the best known intersex Americans. (Another well-known intersex person is South African Olympic athlete, runner Caster Semenya.) In her 2018 TED talk, Emily estimates that she/he is one among more than 150 million living humans with mixed female and male characteristics. (Without extensive biological testing, it can sometimes be hard to tell if someone is intersex.) If accurate, Emily’s figure represents between 1 and 2% of the global human population of over 8 billion.

Iceland is a small island nation in the northern Atlantic whose population is only about 0.1% of the U.S. total. Iceland has many unique characteristics, but the one that most buoys my sense of possibilities is that it has the smallest “gender pay gap” of any developed country. By 2024, U.S. women’s access to high-income professions had improved. A former gender pay gap of 60 cents on the dollar had been cut by over half. U.S. women now earn nearly 84 cents for every dollar paid to similarly qualified men. In Iceland, women earn nearly 92% of men’s compensation, not yet quite equal, but an inkling that gender pay parity is possible.

Some of the figures above give me hope; they also provide food for thought. However, my main concern as I continue to age isn’t any of them. It’s the small but increasing proportion of elders with their mental and physical faculties in decent shape. Even into their 80’s and 90’s, they continue to be alert, contributing members of their communities. They are a 1% I hope to be able to join!   

April Foolishness

April, thank heavens, is nearly over. It’s been a real seesaw ride, with on-again/off-again tariffs, roll backs of environmental safeguards, and wild gyrations in the U.S. and other global stock markets. Civil rights are under attack, amid detentions and deportations of highly questionable legality. Along with all this have come near constant doses of hyperbole, vitriol, and vacuousness from various U.S. national officials. Whoa!  

Outside the U.S., wars in Gaza and Ukraine grind on, causing ever-deepening destruction and human misery. Despite our current President’s boast of ending the Ukrainian conflict even before his inauguration, what talks are occurring seem far from establishing even a temporary cease fire, let alone a resolution of the status of disputed territory plus security guarantees to prevent a recurrence. In Gaza, regardless of Israeli Defense Force claims to be hunting just Hamas terrorists, the density of the Gazan population means that more and more civilians are being killed, maimed, or starved to death. Globally, various other armed conflicts simmer or worsen, less noticed in America-based publicity. 

To adjust my perspective a bit, I went back to an artistic work from the previous time the world seemed on the brink of falling apart, in the early 1940’s. I watched the classic Charlie Chaplin movie, “The Great Dictator,” originally released in October, 1940. At that time, the U.S. had not yet entered the rapidly spreading conflict we now know as World War II. However, German military forces had occupied Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and much of France. Germany’s then-ally, the Soviet Union, had annexed the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, while German ally Italy had invaded Greece. The German air force was conducting frequent bombing raids over Great Britain. Jews in Warsaw, Poland were being herded into an increasingly crowded and restrictive ghetto.

In the movie, Chaplin plays both anti-semitic dictator Adenoid Hynkel, ruler of the mythical country of Tomainia, and his look-alike, an anonymous Jewish barber who’d previously fought for Tomainia during the first World War and had suffered twenty years of amnesia stemming from his injuries. The barber, after returning to his former shop, regaining his memory, and being caught up in anti-semitic raids, flees with his former commander, both of them dressed in military uniforms. The barber is mistakenly presumed to be Hynkel and is pressured into giving a speech to the citizens of the neighboring country of Osterlich, recently invaded by Hynkel’s troops. Impersonating Hynkel, the barber, instead of more bombast, gives an impassioned speech about the need for peace and justice: 

“I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone – if possible – Jew, Gentile – black man – white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness – not by each other’s misery. … To those who can hear me, I say – do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

Though release of “The Great Dictator” was initially limited in some U.S. cities with substantial German-American populations, over time it became Chaplin’s most successful film commercially. The film has also won critical acclaim as one of the greatest comedies ever produced. In 1997, it was selected by the Library of Congress for inclusion in the National Film Registry.

As we approach the final day of this tumultuous month, it may be just coincidence that April 30 marks a couple of other transitions in recent history: On April 30, 1945, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his Berlin bunker, as opposing troops closed in from both west and east; on April 30, 1975, the final Americans left South Vietnam after a generation of American involvement, as troops from the north shelled the presidential palace in Saigon.

This April, we’re also marking a transition of leadership in one of the world’s major faiths. We’re partway through a nine day period of mourning for Pope Francis, who died earlier in April. For over a dozen years, Francis used his papacy to speak up for the world’s underserved—our natural environment, and those of our human citizens who have least benefited from the global economy.  

While watching one bombastic leader hold forth in an Oval Office centered on a toy airplane, we can remember that his style is not the only possible option. Both Chaplin’s barber and the former leader whose simple casket was recently laid to rest provide viable counterexamples.

Newsworthy?

The news seems to come at us faster and faster these days. With so many channels and so many media, it can be hard to keep track. Hard, too, to keep away from the insistent, worrisome chatter. Might our job/investment portfolio/health care/retirement income go up in smoke if we don’t pay close enough attention? Might the next global conflict be just around the corner? Might the U.S. devolve into its next civil war during the current congressional or presidential term? Will we ever get to civil peace again?

Most mental health advice suggests that limiting our news consumption helps maintain our sanity. When we pay too much attention, we can easily succumb to the belief that everything is out of control, that things are bad and getting worse. 

It helps me to take a step back. Being older in this instance can also be an asset. Having endured prior booms, busts, and disasters helps me put things into perspective. 

As a lifelong bookworm, I’ve also developed during the past couple of decades some “go to” volumes for perspective adjustment. Two stand out, both for their global range, and for their hopefulness: 

———–

Half the Sky, by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, was published in 2009. Its title derives from the Chinese folk proverb, “Women hold up half the sky.” The book focusses on women’s situations in the developing world and how we might achieve women’s development goals globally. Kristof and WuDunn explore some of the gaps and practices that continue to disenfranchise women and girls. The authors stress adequate health care, education, and entrepreneurship as avenues for progress, benefitting both women and men. They present vivid examples, while being realistic about roadblocks. One is our human tendency to focus on individual stories over the “big picture.” For example, in discussing maternal mortality ratios, they touch briefly on overall statistics. Global data on such rates, from 2005, ranged from 1 death per 100,000 live births in Ireland to 2,100 in Sierra Leone. The authors then write: “…[W]e hesitate to pile on the data, since even when numbers are persuasive, they are not galvanizing. …[S]tatistics have a dulling effect, while it is individual stories that move people to act.” (p. 99)  

Factfulness, by Hans Rosling with Ola Rosling and Anna Rosling Rönnlund, was published in 2018. The subtitle to the Roslings’ book is attitude adjusting all by itself: “Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World—and Why Things Are Better Than You Think.” Hans Rosling died while the book was in progress and was succeeded in authorship by his son and daughter-in-law. Hans gained wide recognition as a global health researcher who made statistics both more approachable and more relevant. He pioneered representing global datasets with proportionately sized bubbles for different countries or regions. He also showed bubbles in motion for longer term trends. (You may want to watch his TED talk from 2006 on late 20th century human fertility, health, wealth, and change titled “The Best Stats You’ve Ever Seen,” or a 4-minute BBC presentation of “200 years of health and wealth in 200 countries.”)  

In Factfulness, the Roslings sum up Hans’ life’s work by pointing out the harmful “instincts” that can skew our assessments of overall conditions. One that I find especially prevalent in current news is the “size instinct.” As they explain: 

“You tend to get things out of proportion. I do not mean to sound rude. Getting things out of proportion, or misjudging the size of things, is something that we humans do naturally. It is instinctive to look at a lonely number and misjudge its importance. …

The media is this instinct’s friend.  …

The size instinct directs our limited attention and resources toward those individual instances or identifiable victims, those concrete things right in front of our eyes.”  (pp. 128-129)

———-

Much of our current media, it seems to me, suffers greatly from overuse of the  “size instinct.” Though huge numbers can get bandied about without much context, much of our media highlights whichever isolated facts promote their respective political agendas. Our size instinct is not new, but can get amplified in our media-saturated lives. 

Several decades ago, I was exposed to the slogan “Think globally, act locally.” The Kristof/WuDunn and Rosling books remind me to pay attention to widespread, longer term trends, while at the same time concentrating my energies and skills toward making the locale where I live a little bit more humane, a little bit more equitable. Facts are mutable over time. Women do hold up half the sky. And if enough of us make small improvements wherever we are, over time we’ll become worthy of better news.  

DEI or UIE?

Current dismantling of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts, in our national government and elsewhere, lead me to wonder whether any of us would be willing to be subject to their opposites: uniformity, inequity, and exclusion. 

We too often can seem to be playing a cynical game of zero-sum, short-term “yo-yo” with efforts that have ebbed and flowed for generations, if not millennia. We need to remember that diversity is broader than a label–it includes all our many efforts to understand our differences. Let’s be careful lest, in a push to reform any excesses of DEI, we prematurely abandon valuable progress because of the discomfort that diversity, equity and inclusion work inevitably creates. Be we mainstream or marginalized (most of us can be either, depending on the situation), changing the habits we’ve developed in the ways we treat each other rarely comes naturally. Also, American impatience with the pace of change sometimes redounds to our detriment. For example, among lessons yet to be learned from the covid-19 pandemic is that recovery from a serious societal trauma takes both effort and time. 

An advocate of inclusion I recently came across is author Ty Tashiro, whose 2017 book Awkward, includes a discussion of an increasingly diverse American social landscape and the nearly universal awkwardness this can engender: 

“[I’m] one of those who strongly believes … [that] more inclusionary attitudes toward traditionally marginalized groups have been positive and long overdue. I think it’s important to make clear that I hold a supportive view of these changes because I would also suggest that these societal shifts have come with some societal growing pains. These significant shifts … have created a post-institutional social world where traditional expectations have faded away and new expectations have yet to be clearly defined. It’s all right to admit that social progress comes with a little confusion about what to do next.

Many people are also discovering how much work it takes to truly embrace diversity. It’s one thing for people to say that they support racial diversity, gender equality, or gay marriage, but being fully open to negotiating different attitudes and expectations takes a tremendous amount of social awareness and effort.”  

I believe that some of the current vitriol of our politics and social lives comes from an intersection of burgeoning social media with correspondingly increased diversity in our population. We can too easily get “siloed” in our media diets and either not be exposed to differing views at all or start to view people with differing views as somehow less than human. Over the longer term, we cannot maintain whatever fragile status quo we imagine we’re protecting by building a wall, out-shouting our opponents, or using intimidation. The sooner we resume the slow, important work of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, the more likely we are to succeed in our ongoing experiments in democratic governance and civil society.    

Again, Perhaps

Again, we have selected an immigrant’s 
Grandchild, someone with complex business
Dealings and a felony conviction on appeal,
To be our official national leader.

Again, we have projected our individual 
And collective traumas–slavery, violence
Internal, external, and systemic–
Across time zones and borders.

Perhaps too few of us have yet realized that
Pursuing greatness through vengeance
Will, sooner or later, be revealed
To be the basest form of pettiness.

Perhaps too few of us have yet relearned
That nature, however harsh she may seem
During pandemics, blizzards, floods, or fires, is
Also healing when we show respect and pay attention.