Facing Reality and Arizona

A number of the years ago I watched the movie Pump Up The Volume.  I was intrigued by the storyline, but let's face it I was a bit entranced by the lead actress.  But, I digress.  In the movie, the lead character, Mark--played by Christian Slater--was an awkward shy teenage kid.  He had moved to a new city with his parent and moved to a new high school--Hubert Humphrey High.  He felt like a shy, out-of-place, outsider.  Not being able to reach his friends back east via shortwave radio, he uses his equipment to start broadcasting a pirate radio station in a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona.  He finds his voice and identity in his radio station.    It became his platform for what is wrong with American society (and eventually his own high school).   He would start each broadcast with the song Everybody Knows.  The song is pretty cynical.  It speaks to the bad things in life we know to be true, but typically don't talk about.  "Everybody knows that the dice are load/the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer/the war is lost..."  Anyway, so it got me to thinking about when and why we don't speak up about 'wrongs' and consider if speaking out is the right option at the time.  It also got me to thinking when we do acknowledge a problem or wrong, how do we acknowledge it and how we move forward.

Why and when we don't speak up?

• We are afraid of consequences.
• Fear of consequences to us and those close to us.
• Sometimes we fear consequences to our everyday life.
• For example, we are aware of corruption at the highest levels in our place of employment, we may fear retaliation--such as job loss--if we speak out.
• For example, if we speak out against problems in our child's school district, we might fear doing so puts a target on their back.
• For example, if we point out corruption in our place of worship we risk being shunned by the church.
• Sometimes we fear consequences to the safety.
• For example, if we witness a murder or embezzlement, we might fear harm if we agree to cooperate with law enforcement investigating it.
• For example, in Nazi Germany those who spoke out of turn about the Third Reich were at risk of never being heard from again.
• Fear of consequences to society as a whole.
• There has long been speculation about the 'truth' behind the assassination of JFK.  There has been speculation that the government either knew more about it than they admitted and/or were more involved than they admitted. The unspoken fear is that if the 'public knew what really happened', it would undermine our government as an institution.  At least that's the theory about it.
• In other words, the 'truth' is just too damning for us handle as a society.  In other words, as a society we are not "ready" to handle certain truths.
• We are too entangled.
• Are we compromised?   Are we corrupt as well? 
• It would stand to reason that a politician on the take would be less likely to out others on the take, especially if they felt their corruption was 'known'. 
• Are we entangled with one who is compromised or corrupt.
• We are likely to be silent about corruption, for example, if a friend or loved one is in the middle of it.  
• We could have a bias to protect the person or persons.  
• We don't know how to or where to start
• Sometimes a problem or wrong is so huge in scope that we aren't sure where to start.
• Sometimes we just don't have the words to express what we know to be true.
• Much of the public doubts the official version of the JFK killing and what followed (Lee Harvey Oswald's killing).   While there are a number of alternative theories to what REALLY happened, there are many people who doubt the official version because it just seems to convenient or similar.  They can't say for sure what happened, but they KNOW that the official version just sounds a bit to nicely wrapped up.
• We don't have 'all the evidence', despite it being blatantly obvious the problem exists.
• We have a good circumstantial case, but we don't have the 'body' or 'smoking gun'.  This is the case when law enforcement has a good working theory on a crime but doesn't indict or go public until they have concrete evidence/irrefutable proof.
• The scope of the problem is not fully evident yet.  For example, an auto manufacture may hold off an an official recall until they get their arms around the extent of a defect or flaw.
• We are in denial of the scope of the problem.
• In numerous high school shootings, the perpetrators were known to be students and staff as 'problem children', but for whatever reason no one stepped up and took decisive action to avoid a tragedy.
• People sometimes behave as if they ignore a big enough problem it will just 'go away by itself'.
• We have decided it is not the right hill to die on or not the right time.
• When I was a teen, my dad gave me lunch money for school.  Sometimes I packed a lunch and just pocketed the money.  It wasn't the most honest behavior and I found out later my dad figured it out.  However, the matter apparently wasn't important enough in the big scheme of things for him to address as I did help him a lot.

When we do speak up 

• How do we address an issue.
• Do we address it directly?
• Do we put all our cards on the table, acknowledging the extent of the problem?
• Doing so could make others defensive or alienate them.
• Doing so could put us in an awkward position of being forced to make a difficult choice or decision (especially if we are not prepared to do so)?
• For example, if a relationship is broken addressing the brokenness directly could build pressure for us to get out of it from those around us.
• Dong so could also kick the 900lb. gorilla out the room and allow us a fresh start as a family, group, or society rather than a wound that continues to slowly bleed out.
• How can we even remotely hope to heal a relationship, for example, without addressing what is actually broken in it.
• Do we address it indirectly?
• Do we tacitly acknowledge a problem without speaking directly to it or fully to it?
• Doing so gives could give people room to address the problem and save face.  
• In court, this looks like a 'no-contest' plea.   
  
  
• In international diplomacy, it may look like a quiet solution to a crisis.
• In a relationship, this could look like a plea for individual counseling.
• Doing so could allow us the space to work out a solution.  An unspoken understanding of an issue could also lead to an unspoken solution, where a problem is addressed quietly without a public outing of the problem and the pressure that brings.  
• When the St. Louis Cardinals traded Keith Hernandez they wanted to get rid of a popular player with drug problems, but they didn't want to publicly humiliate him.   
• They orchestrated an unpopular trade to get rid of the problem from the St. Louis clubhouse.
• Had they outed him as drug addict beforehand that could have caused a bigger disruption in the clubhouse and would have forced them to get rid of him under more pressure.
• Doing so could unfortunately can sometimes give the problem more space to fester.  
• Sometimes problems need to be fully out in the open before real solutions can be undertaken.
• For example, quietly or indirectly addressing a problem with a loved one about their drinking, might get an acknowledgement and a commitment to do better.  However, if it is out of control it might offer them the space to ignore you.  An intervention might be necessary to force them to face their issues.

Conclusions:

• As a society, it is best to be as transparent as possible about problems we face.  However, not everything that can be said has to be said.  Sometimes doing so could be more harmful than good, esp. when dealing with those who don't have our best interests in mind.
• There are sometimes legitimate reasons for delaying transparency--such as preparing people to deal with bad news.  However, sometimes we avoid transparency for selfish reasons such as not wanting to expose our role in a problem or issue.
• We can quietly acknowledge issues or problems to allow people/society space to work on them.  However, quiet acknowledgement should not be used as a means of avoiding dealing with them.

I believe it is best to be transparent as possible.  There is giving out important details and coming clean, but there is also giving out TMI and damaging others in the process.  So, it's like anything: Intent and nuance matter.

-- Rich

Drug Addiction: A Hazy Shade of Spring

I finally watched Less Than Zero. Only you know like 33 years after it came out. Robert Downey Jr's character, Julian Wells, played a really convincing drug addict. Obviously they take a lot of liberties with the original novel and some liberties with addiction. However, at one point in my life I spent some time around a friend who suffered from drug addiction. Unfortunately, the film was pretty accurate in its depiction of the downward spiral. At some point in my life, I may or may not have inhaled (as Bill Clinton said re: marijuana). However, I was offered a more highly addictive, harder drug than that. Fortunately, I grew up in a family and faith that frowned upon that. I also was blessed with an ability to just say no to things like that. This evidences itself in my take or leave approach to potentially addictive medicine, including painkillers after a surgery. I've had a few procedures and know that painkillers are "nice" in terms of blunting pain and helping one to feel alright. But, the few times I've taken them, post-procedure, I rarely have gone through 25% of the prescription. I do take medicine for anxiety, but once again, I've been able to take or leave it. I thank God that of my imperfections, that a weakness for 'needing' addictive drugs is not one of them.

So, I know from personal experience--a friend who had a hardcore drug addiction-- as well as experiences of others that drug addiction is NOT a pretty picture. Drug addicts:

• Don't realize or underestimate the addictive potential of the drugs they choose.
• They alienate those closest to them.
• They are subject to harsh withdrawal and a desire to make it go and just feel good again.
• They have the delusion that "I'll just get high one just one more time", even after they have had a crash or they have a 'sober' moment when they realize the damage. See the point above.
• They have the inability to keep employed.
• We (their family/friends) wonder if we are enabling them when we help them out.
• They are often 'off' or shaky even when the when the have been sober for a bit.
• They struggle with staying clean, even after a stint in rehab.

Unfortunately, the friend that I mentioned who struggled with drug addiction, died way too soon. It was a spring day years ago. From what I heard, she didn't die during a high. She was driving a vehicle she wasn't used to and was supposedly texting at that point and lost control. It was on her way home from a 12-step meeting, ironically. I suspect even if she was 'sober' at that moment, that the up and down ride with her addiction had taken its toll on mind and body. In other words, I suspect she "off" or "wasn't herself" when the accident happened.

Besides losing a friend, the worst part about it for me was that I predicted it with chilling accuracy. Earlier in the day she had asked to borrow a little money or to get her something to drink or something like that. I knew that that could or would be enabling her and told her I couldn't do it. She wasn't happy about that as addicts often aren't when their requests are rejected. I'd gone to a meeting with her previously when she asked--I think for moral support--but that night I didn't. After rejecting enabling her, I talked to a friend of hers a little later. I told her friend that I couldn't control whether my addict friend finds a way to get what she doesn't need, but that I wasn't going to inadvertently enable that. I said, I don't want to enable her and get a call later that she had wrapped her car around a tree. Famous last words...

Unfortunately, the next morning, I got a call from another friend that she had died in a horrible one-car crash the previous night. She swerved off the highway and the foundation of a sign. I then told him what I said to her friend. I was like, "I wasn't meaning to be right or make a prediction". But, sometimes somehow you just know when a bad outcome is inevitable. I had helped another friend years previously with alcohol detox. That gave me enough hubris to think I could "be the difference-maker". Anyway, the circumstance with my friend had reinforced something I think I already knew on some level, but denied: You can't "fix" everybody. People needing help have to be ready to help themselves before you can help them to get to a better place. I had to relearn that you can't help everyone.

You never forget a circumstance or person like that. I guess in the back of my mind, I always knew that she would go too young, that her life wasn't going to have a good ending. I had told her about two weeks prior that she needed to get herself together as I didn't want to be reminded one day of this conversation being one of the last we had. Unfortunately, once again, that was a 'prediction' I didn't want to be right on.

Anyway, I guess the moral of the story is this:

• Always seek a healthy outlet for your life's worries.
• Never start something that you have to convince yourself that you won't get hooked or that you can stop at any time. If you have to convince yourself, you've basically already admitted you are at-risk.

Anyway, thanks for reading this if you've gotten this far and I hope you have gotten something out of it. I don't know how to end this except to say, always make good choices and encourage loved ones to do so too.

-- Rich

* The irony of the situation is that the friend of hers that I talked to before her accident eventually was claimed by drug addiction (or its affects as well). I kept in touch with her friend for a while, but years later I checked her friend's Facebook and it said, "In remembrance of"... I found out the details of hers friend's passing through a common friend of all of us.