Wednesday, Indianapolis, Indiana

As the final weeks of the season wind down, millions of loyal viewers are anticipating who will be crowned this year’s American Idol. David Archuleta, David Cook & Syesha Marcado are the final three contestants. Each is a remarkable talent with millions of devoted fans. More than just a television talent contest, American Idol is a great soap opera that introduces us to colorful, remarkable young people.

In the history of television there are a few television shows that stand above the rest in terms of their popularity and status as a pop-culture icon. American Idol clearly stands with this elite group. Standing in the long tradition of talent programs like Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour in the 1950s through Ed McMahon’s Star Search in the 1980s, American Idol has clearly touched a nerve with young Americans who have an unquenchable desire to become famous celebrities. Each year over 100,000 people come out for auditions. Of these only 1000 get to compete in the later competitive rounds.

Part of the show’s appeal is that it is essentially two distinct programs. The first several weeks feature a select number of early contestants. While we get an early glimpse at some of the few who will make it into the late rounds, most of the entertainment value of the show is watching the hilarious, awful performances by so many auditioners who evidently have no clue that they are without singing talent. It makes us wonder where were the people who allegedly love these individuals who fail to inform them that while there are many things they can do in life, becoming a singing star is clearly not one of them. Dozens of these auditions are cringe worthy.

The three judges, each with their own unique style, give feedback to these delusional wannabes that they evidently failed to receive from their family and friends. In particular, Simon Cowell is the harsh, stern voice of authority in truth who, insensitive though he is, gives viewers a thrill because he says what many are actually thinking.

But as the weeks progress, the contestants who make it through demonstrate remarkable talent. And it is these last dozen weeks that constitute the second American Idol program. This is when viewers are treated to the next generation of pop stars, young singers with great pipes and cool styles. Season after season American Idol concludes not just by crowning one winner, but by introducing American music fans to the next great group of music stars. Seeing the acclaim and the fame and riches that come with making it to the final weeks, it is really no wonder that 10s of thousands of adolescence, forgetting that they don’t have the ability, step out with little more than their fantasies trained to become an idol.

In the first of seven initial auditions in the weeding out process of American Idol; over 10,000 hopefuls turned out at th e Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California. Many waited for hours for their turn, with witnesses saying that they were practicing or mouthing the words to their audition songs. This is yet another indicator that Americans are delusional when it comes to the prospect of performer fame. Let’s be honest, for viewers the delight of the program is every bit as much in the cringing humiliation of the losers in the early rounds as it is for the gifted finalists at the end of the contest. In these early rounds the contestants had - get this - 20 seconds to make their impression. If they didn’t come through in that nano second they were toast. But they are allowed to try again in another auditions city, This means that those rejected might actually buy a ticket out of their pocket, get on a plane and be confronted again with the rejection.

What’s Going On? For some participants it reveals their valid self-awareness of the talent they knew they had since they were young. It now finds a chance to be recognized. And mixed among these are those who are, in essence delusional about their gifts and capacity Sifting out one from another is the joy of the program. So American Idol’s appeal is the vacillation between the capable and the crazed. And this reflects the inner struggle each of us has within ourselves. Am I as grand as I fantasize or as phony as I fear?

Tuesday, Jasper, Indiana

Veteran actress Candace Bergen is now best remembered for playing the character Murphy Brown for a decade (1988-1998). She broke new ground as a female character by playing a recovering alcoholic who returns from rehab to resume her role as an investigative reporter for television news magazine show.

Murphy was tough, relentlessly sarcastic and of course, hilarious. The writing on the show was crisp and often brilliant. And, as is always the case and a successful sitcom, the cast was loaded with colorful, if stereotyped characters. There was the rigid news anchor Jim, the airhead Corky and the youthful producer Miles, the foil for Murphy’s acid tongue.

Murphy Brown aired a decade after the legendary Mary Tyler Moore Show. But it took a character of a woman news reporter to new heights, or perhaps depths. Murphy Brown was Mary Richards with roid rage! Murphy was the cynic to Mary’s optimism; the bile to the sweetness of Mary Richards. And in some ways Murphy Brown reflected the time and sensibility of America in the late 1980s. This was the era dubbed “the need generation.” So much of what was going on in the popular culture seem to affirm that it was right for each of us to grab everything we could for ourselves.

The 1980’s was the decade when Oliver Stone’s film Wall Street critiqued the emptiness of our narcissism. And in reflecting the consequences of this time of selfishness, Murphy Brown played the lost, burnout perfectly. Murphy said out loud what millions of women were thinking, but not all of them were willing to express. She flamed out at stupidity, particularly inept men who deserved her wrath and the contempt of any thinking person.

The show might have been relegated to a warm memory in television history if it weren’t for Vice President Dan Quayle. In 1992 speech, Quayle decided to reference the show Murphy Brown by criticizing its depiction of a woman who has a baby out of wedlock, and plans to raise it alone, as if a father was unnecessary. Quayle’s speech ignited a firestorm that roused the anger of conservatives and created a backlash against the permissive liberalism of Hollywood. And this backlash listed all throughout the 90s, capped by the resurgence of the takeover of Congress by conservative Republicans.

It’s not that Murphy Brown was responsible for this backlash, but the show became a touchstone for an abiding frustration by millions of Americans who rejected the values depicted in much of popular culture. It is interesting to note that Candace Bergen herself was quoted as saying she agreed with Quayle, that it is important to not marginalize the role of the father and raising children. Nonetheless, Quayle was the target of endless ridicule for choosing a fictional character to make a point about the American family. And so the unlikely couple of Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown are forever connected and pop-culture history.

Monday, Chicago, Illinois

The program that shed a bright light on the common complicated, often enmeshed relationship that adults maintain with their aging parents drew great laughs from what is for many an intensely uncomfortable situation. Raymond, Long Island sportswriter, and his brother Robert, the giant, sad sack police officer, spend most of their time and energy trying to negotiate and distance from their overbearing mother Marie and obnoxious, insensitive father Frank.

The show centers on the life of Ray Barone and the struggle he has standing up to his overbearing mother who life is preoccupied with her sons. There are millions of couples who experience the complication of in-laws who do not respect boundaries and perpetually intrude into their children’s marriages. Parents of adult children who interact with them as if still in control and with authority can wreak havoc in the family life of their children and grandchildren. As is the case for so many viewers, it raises the question, how do we separate from my parents and yet maintain a close loving relationship with them.

Of course the problem, although exacerbated by Raymond’s problem of standing up to his mother, is an issue that rests with his parents themselves. Unreflective and without respect for the maturity of their grown sons, Marie, with the collusion of Frank is perpetually invasive, insensitive to the problem it creates for a loyal son and his frustrated spouse. While the show was played for humor, there is no doubt that over time resentments would come to a head in the risk of permanent estrangement is a very real possibility. Such is the case for limitless numbers of families in the real world.

Why We Watch

While there certainly are some cases of aging parents chorus of obnoxious and intrusive as Marie and Frank Barone, in reality most adults with young families have found a way to negotiate the proper balance between continuing connection to their parents with a sense of independence and control of their own family life. In cases where these boundaries are violated, it is most likely in situations where the parents and their adult children live far apart from one another. Moving away and having a life disconnected from daily contact with your parents, may have some benefits of independence and self-reliance. However, far too many young parents tend to marginalize and cut themselves off from the helpful mentoring and support that comes with close connection to their own parents. The truth is, not everyone loves Raymond, and in all likelihood hardly anyone loves his parents.

While the show, Everybody Loves Raymond played the dysfunctional family for laughs, in more cases than not children miss the practical help given by parents, and grandchildren are diminished by not having the unconditional love and support of caring grandparents.

1. Although in your mid-40’s, your mother still does your laundry

2. When you visit home you usually sit on your mother’s lap

3. Even though you’ve been married for 15 years, your father still spanks you

4. From the first day of your marriage you have insisted that your spouse only cook your mother’s recipes

5. When visiting your parents at holidays you sleep in your unchanged childhood bedroom; your spouse sleeps in a guest room

6. Whenever your parents get a new car you immediately trade in yours for the exact same model

7. Before you committed to taking a new job promotion, you called your father for permission

8. Your parents accompanied you on your honeymoon

9. In order to fall asleep you must listen to a recording of your mother tell you a story

10. After 35 years, you still sleep on the cowboy sheets you’ve had since childhood

Friday, Lafayette, Indiana

Perhaps it was the intensity of being on the East Coast where I traveled to speak. Spending a few days in Boston, a great city to visit, I got caught up as I usually do in the hot rhythm of the city’s pace. Looking back on the observations this week are realized I have been ranting, intense like a man on fire. So perhaps it’s fitting that I conclude this week of froth with a reflection on the futility of purposeless intensity.

I suppose it goes along with having passion for my life and work that it is an ever present challenge to rein in my intensity, to direct my energy with more focus and less spill over. As I approach my seventh decade of life it is still a challenge to be a person of greater serenity without surrendering my enthusiasm for my ministry. My sister Pat is a therapist in Virginia and has worked for many years in hospice with dying patients. It’s evident that this experience has gone a long way toward shaping her perspective, a perspective I admire and seek to emulate. If I have trouble with this life and never, blessed as I am, it’s no wonder that society is free quickly plagued by the misdirected passions of people whose lives are characterized by relentless suffering. So many people feel trapped, and they are trapped behind walls of their relationships, their debt or the homes of their childhood. What do they do with their energy?

While it may seem like a stretch intellectually, this issue feels very connected to me with my work promoting social connection, for my speaking and writing on refrigerator rights. You know, the kind of relationships with people who can just come into a refrigerator without needing to ask permission. These are the very kinds of connections and friendships that are missing in the lives of most Americans. When our lifestyle is characterized by radical individuality and social isolation we wind up becoming dependent on our own personal, emotional resources. And quite frankly, from a psychological point of view this is simply not adequate to maintain an equilibrium in our mood.

Struggling with a personality characterized by too much emotional intensity is, for me, a symptom of not having enough interpersonal outlets to keep our mood stable. A significant part of personal health is having the ability and freedom to speak candidly with those who care about us about what thrills us and what frustrates us in our work and with our families. Without having these connections, we are at risk to vent in inappropriate places. Therapists refer to this as displaced anger. It comes out in any variety of odd settings, from the way we drive to the ideology we attach to, and are in tolerance for the behavior of strangers we encounter every day.

Given that I have spent most of this week venting about things in the culture, it tells me I probably need to get some contact with family and friends. I will do that this weekend, and hope you have opportunities to do the same. Have a great couple of days and spend some time with people who care about you, or begin the process of creating those kinds of connections.

Wednesday, Boston, Massachusetts

Although she is still hanging in there, it certainly seems that Senator Hillary Clinton’s race for the presidency is over. Unless something shocking happens (and of course that could happen), the election will have John McCain face Barack Obama. Most of us are pretty exhausted from the protracted Democratic nomination race. Hopefully there’s some good news in this turn of events. It means that perhaps we now can discuss issues that are significant to the present and future of the United States. But the cold reality is that the campaign will be reduced to the usual foolishness.

Regardless of what inane distractions emerge, one of the most disturbing concerns has to do with the widespread racial animus that still plagues our society. My wife and I had each heard individuals make reference to their refusal to vote for an African-American. And that’s where their opinion begins and ends. Where the candidate stands on the issues; where the candidate desires to take the country, has little or no relevance to them. But the fact that he is a person of color means that it’s a nonstarter for them. Even if it means voting against their own interests economically and socially, a black man will simply not get their vote. If ever there was justification for rethinking the right of stupid people to vote, here it is.

In fact, how disheartening and utterly unpatriotic to consider that millions of people use their precious right to vote to vent their ignorance, based on their prejudice against all people of a particular race. Are you kidding me? What’s going on here? Let’s be candid. Because such people are utterly unreflective, they often make a bizarre connection between images of African Americans they see on television, mostly focusing on negative stereotypes like urban gang members, foulmouthed rap stars and disreputable civil rights leaders, and lump Obama together with images they find distasteful and even frightening. And again, it reveals limited thinking and an inability to use the tool of one’s vote with any degree of competence.

Every administrator and teacher in every high school in America knows well the kids, who for any number of reasons, essentially trashed their education without regard for its consequences later in life. And sure enough they are seen later on in their community living the predictable legacy of being rebellious, obnoxious adolescents. Do we really expect that these people, hostile to authority and education, will make an intelligent choice when they vote?

There has been a lot of coverage during his primary race about courting certain blocks of voters. We’ve heard about candidates pursuing voting blocs of white women, black men, working-class white men… on and on. Well good for them. Every constituency should be addressed, and issues that are important to them spoken about. But care must be taken with this approach, lest it be shallow pandering to the worst traits of the most ignorant walking among us. If all this sounds arrogant, so be it. I for one I’m sick and tired of the attention we give to the bigoted, the hostile and those too stupid to vote for what would help them and the rest of us. Whether you vote for McCain or Obama, are your reasons ethical? Is your vote moral?

Wednesday, Boston, Massachusetts

No matter who wins any of the elections being tested this year, I think it’s important to keep in mind that in modern democracy the willingness to run for office deserves the admiration of every citizen. While it is certainly true that some run for office seeking fame and power, I do believe the majority of people who run for office, whether local or national step into the spotlight because they have a commitment to public service.

Frequently voters, abetted by the media, take a jaundiced view of the motives of people running for office. But cynicism is easy, and the privilege of those who sit by idly and judge. Taking the risk to expose yourself to public and media scrutiny takes gumption. And again, while I am not naive and acknowledge that there are people who run for office with the aim of seeking power, I choose not to believe that this is the majority. My reasons are rooted in my personal relationship with several people who have run for local and statewide office. I have known them long enough and well enough that I can attest that their motives are as they have said: a passion to serve.

I realize that it is the media’s job to investigate and challenge the positions and motivations of every candidate, especially those running for President. But journalism’s responsibility for this task is not my burden. And it is not the responsibility of any citizen. Our job is to educate ourselves about the candidates and vote for those whose positions accord with our own. But in a democracy is equally important that we make the choice to respect the will of the people when their vote goes against my personal point of view. But this attitude seems to be out of vogue. These days it’s in fashion to support the candidate reflecting my own beliefs, while at the same time demonizing the opponent is un-American, unethical and even dangerous. But the real danger is this attitude.

If you are a voter who supports John McCain, Bartack Obama or Hillary Clinton - good for you! But if the election in November turns out to elect someone other than your first choice, it is important…as a matter of fact…it’s embedded in the ideology of our great country that we put aside our differences and step up to support the will of the majority. Unless we can move past our adolescent approach to our political foes, we will remain immobilized and, quite frankly a target of well-deserved ridicule by other democracies.

Tuesday, Boston, Massachusetts

My office and my house are fully wired with most of the latest technological gadgets. I am what’s called, “an early adopter.” Now I don’t buy gadgets indiscriminately, but if any new hardware or software promises to make my life and work easier and more efficient, you’ll find me at the checkout at Best Buy. So I confess to a bias, I revel in the excitement and possibilities of the electronic age. However, I’m always amused and shocked when I encounter people who seem to have spurned all of these new modes of communication. And at the outset let me say, I have no fear of offending them because, well… by their own admission, they’re not reading this.

The Internet celebrates its 25th Birthday this year. That’s when the elaborate, military communication system was made available to the rest of us and it has taken culture by storm. I recently met someone who, when I suggested they might be interested in reading my blog, actually said, “well, I don’t have the worldwide Internet.” Huh!? I tried to make a joke and said, “you mean you’re not on the inter-web?”
Well, he didn’t get it.

Perhaps there’s good reason to spurn technology. Clearly spending your life immersed in screens has some negative effects. But in the extreme, to be so utterly detached from what is going on in the world, I’m not so sure that this is wise either. It’s certainly not necessary to be an early adopter, but I sometimes get a little concerned with people who are non-adopters. Being connected to the culture means being ill-informed about what we need to do to contribute as productive citizens.

As we approach yet another significant election, to be utterly detached from the conversation going on means we become vulnerable to the snippets and the spin that breaks through and can shape or opinion. If all I know about John McCain is a phrase “we will be in Iraq for 100 years,” it shapes my opinion, but completely out of context. If all I know about Hillary Clinton come from some statements made by a campaign staffer, it also misleads my opinion. And of course it’s all that comes to my attention about Barack Obama statements made years ago by his Minister, it distorts my understanding of him.

When I was a comedian in New York, I used to enjoy when Richard Belzer was the emcee at Catcher A Rising Star. He would tell a joke, and if he noticed that someone sitting up front seemed confused, he would tease them about not knowing what was going on in the world. He might say “what’s the problem, Sparky? Read the paper, watch 60 Minutes, catch up!”

It’s hard to be patient with people who seem to be out to lunch, especially when they have strong opinions. Like the fifth person down the rumor chain, their information is often twisted and usually stupid. It’s the kind of limited thinking that causes the dumbbells among us to leap from one bad experience or story about an African-American, for example, to the lazy and easy conclusion that every one of color is…well…whatever. You know, the psychosis and stupidity of racism. To move from your toxic feelings about blacks, women or the elderly to conclusions about Hillary, Barack or John is the very process that keeps humanity from making progress.

An ill-informed electorate gets what it deserves. And in my opinion the fact that we got stuck with the mess we are in domestically and globally, with an ill-equipped president and an impotent legislature tells me that too many citizens are either disconnected nor not thoughtful. Maybe it’s time they got “on the line to the world web net.”

Monday, Indianapolis, Indiana

Can’t anybody keep it zipped? When news comes out about some coddled celebrity, actor, musician or athlete cheating on their spouse, taking advantage of their fame, it’s so pathetically common that we now tend to go ho-hum. But as I observed last Friday, television “news journalists”  have been similarly elevated to the status of stardom. And so I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that even the news icon Barbara Walters has publicly confessed to carrying on an illicit affair with former Massachusetts senator Edward Brooke. Holy Ink Stain, Batman!

Yes, even Barbara Walters, at one time the "go-to" babe in television journalism compromised her industry’s ethics by carrying on with a powerful politician. So much for objectivity. Senator Brooke was America’s first African-American senator, and a man of sophistication and brilliance. Or so we thought. Turns out he too violated not only his marriage vows, but breached the ethics of his office by crossing the line with someone charged with reporting objectively on the work of government!

What is particularly uncomfortable was the casual way that Walters confessed her transgression, on the Oprah Winfrey Show in Las Vegas of all places. How fitting! Well, score another point for those who believe that American character continues to sink. As much as the American public has become numb to shocking stories about famous people behaving badly, this one’s a beaut. An admired journatlist carrying on with a Senator.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not naive. I know stuff like this happens all the time. But it is an especially outrageous breach of professional ethics for a news professional to get cozy with a sitting politician while on the job covering the affairs of government. Sorry, I refuse to be so cynical that I let it all pass by as business as usual.

The celebrity culture is an infection on civilization. And I suspect that the underlying culprit here is the system that makes journalism a career that elevates its workers to celebrity, stardom, wealth and influence. It certainly takes a special character to resist the inclination to self-aggrandizement and an expectation of privilege. And celebrity status is taken to presume license to do whatever feels good, regardless of the costs paid by others. Is it any wonder that cynicism rumbles through the society and more people, even those bemusedly looking in on the news taken all with a grain of salt. Barbara Walters sleeping with a sitting senator. Pathetic.

Friday, Lafayette, Indiana

Well aren’t we in good shape?

The economy is convulsing, gas prices are squeezing us, and the endless war in Iraq keeps on keeping on. And what does the media cover? Barack Obama’s nutcase pastor, “Reverend Wright.” This is disgraceful from every angle. There has been virtually no meaningful coverage of any of the issues that are making life miserable for Americans.

As for “Reverend” Wright, it’s become clear that his real ambition is not serving the Gospel, but serving himself. His self-aggrandizing performance in several interviews this past week made clear that his desire is to be a media celebrity. His absurd statements only served to expose him as the narcissistic buffoon that he is, that he’s a “pastor” with showbiz fantasies.

Most religious congregations are led by men and women of integrity who preach their scriptures with humility and conviction, passionate to bring comfort to the lives of the hungry souls listening. But clearly there are some for whom the Sabbath is an opportunity to star in a show. Hundreds and even thousands of seekers hang on the words of these performers who revel in the attention and adulation. Wright made clear which category he falls into in this regard. He was a cringe-worthy embarrassment.

As for the “news” media, these days they mostly shame their profession. If ever there was an illustration of television news outlets driven mostly by profit, as opposed to the public good, this is it. Scrambling for ratings, scratching out numbers of viewers divided among them, desperate for a revenues, CNN, MSNBC, Fox news, ABC, NBC and CBS are clearly about the money. And yet they have the temerity to posture as if they are serving the public by covering the "important" issues of the day. It is beyond obnoxious.

A lot of the public blather about the media focuses on the ideological bias of the various outlets. You know, the mainstream media have a liberal bias, and Fox news is right wing. But this is a canard. The scandal is not the perceived ideological bias of the various news channels, the outrage is their shameless pandering for ratings. Their ideology is actually unified: the almighty dollar.

I don’t know when it happened exactly, but whenever it was that media “journalists” became celebrities and television stars, the information available to the public is no looser or more insightful than that provided by the media outlets in the darkest days in Russia, China or North Korea. While they were indeed controlled by a psychotic ideology, our news is equally strangled by profiteering.

These days, the information coming through to us is dictated by their regard for what will spike viewer numbers. Let’s get real here. It is all about ratings and profits, and salacious stories always grab more attention than discussion of issues that have meaning to struggling voters

Thursday, Lafayette, Indiana

What a surprise? A new study reveals that soldiers are hesitant to seek psychological help for their stress problems because they feel that the stigma of getting “shrinked” will damage their careers. Specifically, war veterans resist taking the medication prescribed for their stress related problems. And many refuse to get any form of counseling in spite of seeing unimaginable death and injury.

Who can blame them?

Frequently their superiors make clear that there are implications when a soldier admits to having emotional issues that might affect performance. This attitude is common in the military and in other careers that compel a focus on command and control. It dates back a long way, famously depicted with General George Patton - the tactical genius and neanderthal individual with his own emotional problems - when he slapped a soldier overcome with fear. Patton’s rage at stressed troops (while he, by the way believed that he was a reincarnated, ancient warrior - HELLO!) reflected perfectly a prevailing attitude about the expectations for soldiers.

Especially for those who desire a long, ascending career in the military, presenting a front of psychological strength and stability is seen as a critical asset for advancement. For example, professionals in law enforcement have a similar resistance to therapeutic intervention for their stress related problems.

This, of course, is just lunacy! The fact is, any emotionally healthy, psychologically intact individual will always have a profound reaction when faced with, and confronted by extreme violence and traumatic loss.

Not only must the military or be more assertive in helping troops exposed to trauma reorient themselves, it needs to make sure that the approach to keeping soldiers healthy demands an attitude of triage - that it is expected and accepted throughout the chain of command. The bias against psychological intervention, whether official or tacit, demonstrates a significant deficiency in leadership and management. It fails to recognize that it is absolutely “normal” for any human being to need time and help recovering from the exposure to trauma.

Responsibility for this antiquated attitude also rests with the mental health profession as well. There has been so much emphasis for so many years on mental disease and psychological deficiency, it has scared off many people who need help. The infamous stigma of mental illness includes not only those who suffer with chronic psychiatric problems, but serves to dissuade virtually everyone who could benefit from the great resources available in light of their own, normal human struggles.

How in the world did we come to a place where we have created a feeling of shame that I can’t just “bounce back” after being up close and personal with deadly violence? So much for our vaunted intellectual sophistication!