Flowbee: An Easy and Economical Option for a Haircut in the Age of Coronavirus

Over the past 15 years, people have chuckled when I told them that I don't pay other people to cut my hair. I use a Flowbee. [I can imagine people laughing as I write this].

I was introduced to Flowbee by a well-coiffed gay man, the head of HR at a prominent law firm, who told me that he and many of his friends used a Flowbee to cut their own hair. Yes, it seems ridiculous that people would cut their hair with a device connected to a vacuum cleaner but it does a nice job giving a layered cut quickly and easily (I merely trim around my ears with a trimmer after using the Flowbee). I've saved 15 years of paying someone else to cut my hair and it is immensely satisfying that I no longer need to schedule haircuts - I can cut my own hair whenever I want, and sometimes that is 2 am.

I'm getting ready to cut my hair again today, and it occurred to me that many people out there might want to consider this option, especially in the age of COVIC-19. I'm not getting paid anything for this post, but I am adding this link to Flowbee in case you are interested. As I expected, they are backlogged with orders because of coronavirus. Apparently, others are catching on.

Continue ReadingFlowbee: An Easy and Economical Option for a Haircut in the Age of Coronavirus

Axiomatic Civic Responsibility

I’m looking at the “protesters” in Michigan and ruminating on the nature of civil disobedience versus civic aphasia. By that latter term I mean a condition wherein a blank space exists within the psyché where one would expect an appropriate recognition of responsible behavior ought to live.  A condition which seems to allow certain people to feel empowered to simply ignore—or fail to recognize—the point at which a reflexive rejection of authority should yield to a recognition of community responsibility.  That moment when the impulse to challenge, dismiss, or simply ignore what one is being told enlarges to the point of defiance and what ordinarily would be a responsible acceptance of correct behavior in the face of a public duty. It could be about anything from recycling to voting regularly to paying taxes to obeying directives meant to protect entire populations.

Fairly basic exercises in logic should suffice to define the difference between legitimate civil disobedience and civic aphasia. Questions like: “Who does this serve?” And if the answer is anything other than the community at large, discussion should occur to determine the next step.  The protesters in Michigan probably asked, if they asked at all, a related question that falls short of useful answer:  “How does this serve me?”  Depending on how much information they have in the first place, the answer to that question will be of limited utility, especially in cases of public health.

Another way to look at the difference is this:  is the action taken to defend privilege or to extend it? And to whom?

One factor involved in the current expression of misplaced disobedience has to do with weighing consequences. The governor of the state issues a lockdown in order to stem the rate of infection, person to person. It will last a limited time. When the emergency is over (and it will be over), what rights have been lost except a presumed right to be free of any restraint on personal whim?

There is no right to be free of inconvenience.  At best, we have a right to try to avoid it, diminish it, work around it.  Certainly be angry at it.  But there is no law, no agency, no institution that can enforce a freedom from inconvenience.  For one, it could never be made universal.  For another, “inconvenience” is a rather vague definition which is dependent on context.

And then there is the fact that some inconveniences simply have to be accepted and managed.

Continue ReadingAxiomatic Civic Responsibility

The Death of “I Don’t Know.”

It’s rather amazing. In this age of Coronavirus, we are grappling with hyper-complex problems involving epidemiology, efficaciousness of pharmaceuticals, economic projections and social stability. We are each part of an enormous complex adaptive system, yet it’s difficult to find anyone who lacks a complete understanding of the situation or who lacks detailed opinions about what should be done.

Apparently, it’s not good manners to say “I don’t know” in public any more.

Continue ReadingThe Death of “I Don’t Know.”

Waking Up Podcast Interview: Sam Harris and Caitlin Flanagan

Today I listened to yet another engaging episode of "Making Sense," the podcast of Sam Harris. Sam's guest was Caitlin Flanagan, who often writes for The Atlantic. I enjoy listening to energized conversations like this, involving thoughtful people whose thought processes are not severely warped by political party tribal forces. I'm getting worn out from all of the conversations (in so many other places) involving people who are consciously and enthusiastically reverse-engineering their comments to fit the prevailing dictates of political parties. We would all be so much better off if only we would (as Jonathan Haidt suggests) unplug from the Matrix so that we could each be more consciously self-critical. 

Continue ReadingWaking Up Podcast Interview: Sam Harris and Caitlin Flanagan

Irresolvable Negotiable Differences of our Culture Wars

Marriage/relationship researcher John Gottman has provided us with a stunning statistic:

"69% of relationship conflict is about perpetual problems. All couples have them — these problems are grounded in the fundamental differences that any two people face. They are either fundamental differences in your personalities that repeatedly create conflict, or fundamental differences in your lifestyle needs.In our research, we concluded that instead of solving their perpetual problems, what seems to be important is whether or not a couple can establish a dialogue about them."

Gottman's research reminds me of the our nation's cultural divide; apparently, we can no longer talk with those we perceive to be different. I don't think we differ from each other nearly as much as the mass media suggests. That said, it seems to me that Gottman's suggested strategies for keeping individual relationships happy and functional are relevant to what we need to do on a national level.

We have forgotten how to talk respectfully to one another, avoiding Gottman's "four horsemen," criticism, contempt, stonewalling, and defensiveness. We have forgotten that being in any functional relationship takes hard work and compromise. I believe that this difficult work has become logarithmically more difficult for two basic reasons: A) tribal ideologies running rampant and B) corporate money gushing through the political system. These two things distort the issues, cause us to create crude cartoons of one another, and permeate the national conversation with fear and loathing of each other.

Barking at each other never brings us any progress. We've seen that for years already. It will take lot of work, soul searching, and looking in the mirror to become more functional on a national level. It will take an act of faith that we can get along if only we worked harder to be civil. This is perhaps too much to ask in an age of widespread magic thinking and diminished attention spans.

Continue ReadingIrresolvable Negotiable Differences of our Culture Wars