Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today, we take a hard look at what I view as the disgraceful actions of most of the Republican congresspersons who participated in the 2/27/19 Michael Cohen hearing, and, going forward, what they might do to regain my respect.
The Disgraceful Actions
Michael Cohen served as the president’s personal lawyer and was brought in to the hearing to answer questions by the Congressional House Oversight Committee about possible criminal conduct and unethical behavior on the part of his former client and others connected with him. Rather than to devote their time to the task at hand, Republican after Republican spent the vast amount of time insisting that the whole hearing was a waste of time and a scam by Democrats to do nothing more than to try to gain political points.
Notice that there are two parts of their position. The first indicates that the Democrats wanted to gain political points at the hearing. I take this to mean that they wanted to bring out information that would increase the chances that Democrats will be elected in future elections. This is true enough, though it would have been more true if they also mentioned that the Republicans were also there to try to win political points. Party politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are always trying to win political points. The second part of the statement tried to indicate that the Democrats were there to do nothing more than gain political points. I think that party politicians, including Democrats and Republicans, seek to do some other things besides win political points. The Republicans’ claim that the Democrats were seeking nothing more at the meeting was a superficial effort to hide the very real concerns that many of us citizens have with the current administration given the number of people connected with the administration that have been convicted of crimes.
Characteristic of the tone of the hearing by Republicans was Paul Gosar, a Republican representative from Arizona, who set up a sign behind his chair. The sign showed a picture of Mr. Cohen superimposed on flames, emblazoned with the words “LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!”
This was an attempt to discredit anything that Mr Cohen had to say at the hearing because he had lied in the past. Republicans repeated this attempt over and over again throughout the hearing, but it consistently appeared blatantly disingenuous given their continued support of the President who has a well documented history of lying on numerous occasions.
Rep. Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, began the hearing by saying derisively to the Democratic Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings,
“Here we go, your first announced witness, is Michael Cohen. I want everyone in this room to think about this, the first announced witness of the 116th Congress is a guy who is going to prison in two months for lying to Congress. Mr. Chairman, your chairmanship will be always identified with this hearing.”
To this claim, Rep. Cummings soon corrected the record by indicating the clearly documented fact that under his leadership during the 116th Congress the committee had already had three other hearings. At each, there were several announced witnesses. For example, at one such hearing, the high prices of pharmaceuticals, which is in the process of being investigated by the committee, had executives of the pharmaceutical industry called to answer questions.
Rep. Jordan went on from his untruthful statement, to claim that the present hearing was nothing more than to serve the Clintons, their loyalists, and operatives, as well as to harm the President. To defend his position, Rep. Jordan mentioned that the committee was limited to answer only certain questions. In making this statement, he failed to mention that the reason for these limits was to cooperate with the special counsel and the Southern District of New York that had asked for these limits because certain questions could interfere with their ongoing investigations. This is a standard requirement under this set of circumstances. No doubt Mr. Jordan is well aware of this, and nevertheless, he attempted to slip this by the public’s eye.
Throughout the hearing, when it came time for each of the other Republicans to have their five minutes to question Mr. Cohen, with little exception, they parroted, over and over again, what Rep. Jordan had done. Several of the Republicans asked no questions at all, and most of the others, after consuming the vast majority of their allotted time with insulting Chairman Cummings and the other Democrats for setting up this hearing, hastily asked a single question. This dramatically reduced the time to examine what Mr. Cohen replied.
Why the Republicans at the Hearing Had Clearly Acted Disgracefully
Consider the following facts that are all well known to all of the Republicans who participated in the Michael Cohen hearing:
The United States Intelligence community has concluded that Russia, a US adversary, took illegal action during the last presidential election seeking to help President Trump win.- President Trump, a Republican, nominated Rod Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice and was confirmed by the Republican majority U.S. Senate.
- Following the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his misleading remarks he made to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary during his confirmation process and FBI Director Comey’s dismissal by President Trump, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 elections and related matters.
- During the special counsel’s investigation, several close associates to President Trump were convicted of lying about Russian government connections and/or other illegal matters, including his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (plead guilty to a felony of willfully and knowingly making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements to the FBI), and his campaign chairman Paul Manafort (convicted on eight charges of tax and bank fraud, and repeatedly lying to investigators).
- Mr. Cohen had been President Trump’s personal attorney for about ten years, and in that role has probable first hand knowledge regarding possibly illegal actions over that period of time.
- Each and every one of the Republican participants know that skillful questioning by investigators of people with first hand knowledge of relevant events often leads to obtaining useful information from people even when the person being questioned had lied in the past.
- Information gathered from questioning such witnesses that is deemed as possibly helpful are not automatically assumed to be true, but are instead followed up to seek confirmation by other witnesses and documents.
- Mr. Cohen’s testimony before the special counsel had already been deemed helpful by the special counsel at the time of this hearing and the special counsel had recommended to the sentencing judge that Mr. Cohen’s cooperation be a factor in giving him a lighter sentence.
- Mr. Cohen, who is currently sentenced to three years in prison, if caught lying to Congress again would face far more years in prison, thus increasing the chances that he might provide further useful information if he is thoroughly and skillfully questioned.
- Millions of American citizens wanted to hear and see for themselves how Mr. Cohen would respond to questioning by the Congressional House Oversight Committee.
I contend that each of the ten facts listed above were well known to each of the Republican participants at the Cohen hearing. 
Together, they provide sound reasons to bring Mr. Cohen in for questioning by the Oversight Committee. Thus, by denying that there were any sound reasons, Republican participants were lying. In my opinion, those lies are even more harmful to Americans than the lies Mr. Cohen has been convicted of telling.
My best guess as to why those Republicans had lied at the hearing, wasted time repeating the lies over and over again, and insulting their Democratic colleagues, is that it was these same people who, when the Republicans were in the majority in the House of Representatives, had blocked a thorough oversight investigation in an effort to protect the President. If it was now admitted that going forward with the investigation is the right thing to do, these Republicans would be seen as guilty for having interfered with their committee’s obligations.
Going Forward
I well recognized the pressure these Republican representatives have for saying something supportive about the President whenever they appear in public. Each of them has in their districts a majority of voters who continue to support President Trump. Swimming against this type of tide is hardly to be expected of politicians. Nevertheless, this did not justify their conduct at the hearing.
Other witnesses are being called to be questioned before the same committee. To regain my respect, when going forward, they could find out from their constituents specific things that they believe the President is doing well. Then, at the hearing they could say in under a minute something like,
“We are here to investigate possible wrong doing that might have occurred, and some of President Trump’s associates have already been convicted of criminal activities. That said, I want all of us to keep firmly in mind that the President has been doing wonderful things. Under his leadership, unemployment has remained low, regulations and paper work for business folks have been dramatically reduced, and excellent people have been nominated for judgeships. I sit here today in full support of our President. Now, let me get down to questioning this witness.”
Although I respectfully disagree with much of this statement, I would understand the need for them to make it. If, after such a statement, they then proceeded to earnestly question the witness, while remaining civil to their colleagues, my level of respect for them would rise.
So, there you have it, today’s From Insults to Respect post. Until next time, may you find that all of our political leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, are beginning to act more and more in an honest, respectful manner.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Concerned that your romantic partner’s respect for your kissing technique might not be all that you desire? Is it okay to offer a romantic kiss on a first date? Will your date think less of you if you accept a romantic kiss on the first date? A discussion of Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour episode on kissing will enlighten us on these and other related topics.
Does she love me? I wanna know
How long do you think that I can wait
Moreover, if instead of lingering in your arms during the kiss, she or he ends it a little too quickly, well, that may be another signal that something is wrong. Given how popular the song was, spending 12 weeks on the country charts, clearly indicates it touched something pretty sensitive in the heart of many a listener.
Bob goes on from here to songs that bring up such topics as passionate kissing, kissing in the dark, french kissing, finding lipstick on your collar, catching your woman kissing your best friend, making up after an argument kissing, and the fact that you don’t have to be rich to enjoy a wonderful kiss. He eventually gets back to our “romantic kissing” topic, with the Everly Brothers song, “Till I Kissed You.” Here’s a few lines of its romantic lyrics:
Never felt like this until I kissed ya’
Well, Lawrence, kissing is an important part of a relationship. And it’s one of those things that you have to be relaxed to do. So the fact that you are getting anxious about it isn’t helping you one bit. However, I can give you a few tips. Armed with this knowledge you’ll feel a little more confident and be able to set things right. First of all, make sure your lips are moist. Run your tongue over your lips once before you kiss her. No one wants to kiss sandpaper. 
Stand close to your partner, you don’t want her to reach too far. Tilt your head slightly to one side. Close your eyes just before your lips meet. Just close them. Some people like to keep their eyes opened during a kiss, but until you understand your partner’s preference, better to play it safe and close your eyes. Open your lips slightly, not like you are about to swallow her whole head, just a little bit, and don’t hold your breath. Breath through your nose. Press your partner’s lips gently. Move your lips in a slow circular motion. Be gentle but firm. And finally, and I can’t stress this enough, have a pocketful of mints. There is no underestimating the fact of good breath. Good luck and happy kissing. I hope it won’t be long till you hear your girl say, “baby let me kiss ya just one more time.” 
That there is a pretty decent description of a decent kiss, but I would add one more suggestion for helping him. Why not encourage him to ask his girlfriend what she would like him to do differently when they kiss? For example, she might prefer to be held within his arms more firmly while they are kissing, or perhaps a little gentler approach would be more to her liking.
Jerry not only sees Margaret home, but opens the door for her, and then, well, they’ve been going steady for some time now, and there are some customs that are very enjoyable. But now Frank has a new problem, should he try on a first date to kiss his date. He sees her to her door, and thanks her for going out with him. No, he should not try to kiss her good night on a first date. But he does ask her for another date soon. 
I grew up in Brooklyn, and before I was married, and was dating back in the late 1960s and early 70s, when I asked a gal out, I did so because I had some romantic feelings for her. If, by the end of the evening, when we arrived back at her home, if I still felt romantic toward her, I would say I had a very pleasant time, and pause to see if she said something similar. If she did say something similar, I would very slowly and gently lean toward her, observing her reaction as I did so, and if I saw no sign of resistance, my eyes would close and our lips would join for a romantic kiss. If she seemed to get into it, I would feel a wonderful high sensation, not only during the kiss, but all the way home. I never had any sense of disrespect toward the gal for joining me in such a good night kiss.
He introduces the song by inviting us to “listen to one of the old masters, the fountainhead from which all music flows, Louis Armstrong, and a song that was the centerpiece for his live performances in the later period of his life. This is a version that he recorded in 19 and 51, ‘A Kiss to Build a Dream on.'”
Leave me one thing before we part
Some in such programs advocate that serious problem drinking be viewed as a no-responsibility illness. The topic is a useful vehicle for clarifying some confusion about the nature of “guilt,” “fault,” “blame,” and “responsibility.” Whether or not folks have a crystal clear understanding of these concepts can be the difference between whether or not others will regard them with respect. 
“One Tuesday evening I sat in a saloon in Harlem, a homeless, friendless, dying drunkard. I had pawned or sold everything that would bring a drink. I could not sleep unless I was dead drunk. I had not eaten for days, and for four nights preceding I had suffered with delirium tremens, or the horrors, from midnight till morning. I had often said, ‘I will never be a tramp. I will never be cornered, for when that time comes, if ever it comes, I will find a home in the bottom of the river.’ But the Lord so ordered it that when that time did come I was not able to walk one quarter of the way to the river. As I sat there thinking, I seemed to feel some great and mighty presence. I did not know then what it was. I did learn afterwards that it was Jesus, the sinner’s friend. I walked up to the bar and pounded it with my fist till I made the glasses rattle. Those who stood by drinking looked on with scornful curiosity. I said I would never take another drink, if I died on the street, and really I felt as though that would happen before morning. Something said, ‘If you want to keep this promise, go and have yourself locked up.’ I went to the nearest station-house and had myself locked up.
“I was placed in a narrow cell, and it seemed as though all the demons that could find room came in the place with me…. I was finally released, and found my way to my brother’s house, where every care was given me. While lying in bed the admonishing Spirit never left me, and when I arose the following Sabbath morning I felt that day would decide my fate, and toward evening it came to my head to go to Jerry M’Auley’s Mission. I went. The house was packed, and with great difficulty I made my way to the space near a platform. There I saw the apostle to the drunkard and the outcast–that man of God, Jerry M’Auley. He rose, and amid deep silence told his experience. There was a sincerity about this man that carried conviction with it, and I found myself saying, ‘I wonder if God can save me?’ I listened to the testimony of twenty-five or thirty persons every one of whom had been saved from rum, and I made up my mind that I would be saved or die right there. When the invitation was given, I knelt down with a crowd of drunkards. Jerry made the first prayer. Then Mrs. M’Auley prayed fervently for us. Oh, what a conflict was going on for my poor soul! A blessed whisper said, ‘Come’; the devil said, ‘be careful.’ 
I halted but a moment, and then, with a broken heart, I said, ‘Dear Jesus, can you help me?’ Never with mortal tongue can I describe that moment. Although up to that moment my soul had been filled with indescribable gloom, I felt the glorious brightness of the noonday sun shine into my heart. I felt I was a free man. Oh, the precious feeling of safety, of freedom, of resting on Jesus!…
As the events unfold at the mission, Mr. Hadley continues to experience his actions, not based on choices that he is making, but a surrendering to what the mission might do to help him. Thus, at one point, he says to himself, “I found myself saying, ‘I wonder if God can save me?'”
So, in this general discussion of Mr. Hadley’s experience, we can see the outlines of several components that may have been helpful to him. He recognized that he had come to a pretty awful situation as a result of his drinking. 
He found some people who took some kind interest in him. He began to hear, over and over again, stories of people who had gone through very similar experiences who did have success recovering. He surrendered, at least to some extent, his own will, replacing it in faith in God and the program he had entered into at the mission. He also began to help others who were struggling with similar problems.
Perhaps the reader might have noticed that in Mr. Hadley’s account of his experience, he does not try to make the case that his difficulty controlling his drinking is a no-responsibility disease. There is little doubt that heavy drinking is a risk factor for several diseases, and Mr. Hadley was clearly experiencing some toxic reactions to his heavy drinking. But to certain strict scientific minds, confirming that someone has a disease requires a pathological report that identifies the presence of a lesion, tumor, microbe infection, tissue tear, bone fracture, organ blockage, or physiological poison.
Over the years, I have met AA members who refer to their drinking problem as a disease. I have also witnessed some members getting very angry and defensive when someone in front of them questioned whether or not their problem is a real disease.
The Big Book states that alcoholism “is an illness which only a spiritual experience will concur.” Ernest Kurtz says this is “The closest the book Alcoholics Anonymous comes to a definition of alcoholism.”
The sentence provides one citation that leads us to the two major mental and behavioral disorder classification systems. One of them (DSM-5) has been criticized by scientists for being heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry seeking to classify as many psychological concerns as diseases to legitimize the prescribing of psychiatric drugs. Another one of the classification systems describes it as follows:
As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, there is a subgroup of folks who got there drinking problem under control and believe they did so because they took responsibility for their actions, and that was all that was needed. Some of these folks also believe there is a certain strength and dignity to handling their problems in this way, and those who don’t handle their problems in this way are weak, shameful, and maybe even deserving of punishment.
For them, they may have been spending substantial periods of time agreeing that they are indeed weak, shameful, deserving of punishment, that their negative drinking pattern is their fault, and the insults directed at them because of their drinking problem are well deserved and accurate.
The “sins” which they are eager to escape from almost exclusively engrosses their attention, so their efforts at recovery is a process of struggling away from the “sins,” rather than of striving for the positives that can be achieved. For William James, it would be far better for them to lay less stress on their various social miseries, the harm they are doing to their family, stomach, kidneys, and nerves, and far more on “the blessings of having an organism kept in lifelong possession of its full youthful elasticity by a sweet, sound blood, to which stimulants and narcotics are unknown, and to which the morning sun and air and dew comes as sufficiently powerful intoxicants.” 
This can be a time when suicide is considered, or one decides to surrender to a faith in a process that has worked for others. The personal will is given up, and the person ceases to resist. Sometimes this process includes religious or spiritual themes.
This frees up the subconscious forces to take the lead for a period of time. Instead of trying to force themselves to become alcohol free, by falling back on some larger power, the work that had begun by their will is further worked on in this subconscious incubated process, and, if the soil is right, finally burst forth into flower! 
By framing drinking problems as a disease, it is hoped that people will respond altruistically toward those struggling with this issue in a manner analogous to what happens when a mother’s altruistic emotions spring up when her baby is stricken with an illness. With this line of thinking, instead of laying fault, guilt, insults, or punishment upon the drinker, the focus, it is hoped, is upon a plan to help the drinker deal with the disease.
This strategy, however, is far from perfect. By calling serious drinking problems a disease leads some people losing respect for you. Those who took responsibility for their drinking problems and managed, through an act of will, to free themselves from its clutches will feel you are dodging responsibility where it rightfully belongs.
The actor Will Smith, in his popular YouTube video titled “Fault Vs Responsibility” tries to clarify this (see 
“If it’s somebody’s fault, we want them to suffer, we want them punished, we want them to pay…. As long as we are pointing the finger at whose fault it is, we’re jammed and trapped into victim mode. The road to power is in taking responsibility! Your heart, your life, your happiness is your responsibility and your responsibility alone…. taking responsibility is not admission of guilt. You are not admitting it is your fault. Taking responsibility is a recognition of the power that you see when you stop blaming people. It’s not like letting people who wronged you off the hook, but taking responsibility is an emotional self defense; it is taking your power back.” 
I actually believe there is often a shared responsibility in the types of situations that he is referring to. That is, whenever those of us in our communities begin to see some folks getting into some serious trouble, it is a sign of wisdom if we take some responsibility to try to find ways, out of kindness, to be helpful in some way. For example, many communities, recognizing that problems with addiction is a problem for the whole community, have worked together to provide places for peer support groups to meet at no cost to the support groups.
Second, when Mr. Smith says, “It’s not like letting people who wronged you off the hook,” I’m not quite sure what he means by this. However, just to clarify my own position, I believe that there are times when a person who is having difficulty getting a drinking problem under control, and has tried all of the admonishments, and blaming that often goes along with the frustration of not succeeding, there may come a time when putting aside these negative approaches, and replacing them with something different, makes a world of sense. 
Now, I well understand that when someone has been self-admonishing and self-blaming for quite some time, to suddenly stop doing it is often difficult. Here’s a simple technique for learning to replace this habit with something far more helpful, and it does not cost even a penny.
After about a minute of this, for another minute, turn your attention to the physical sensations that you are experiencing as these words fly by. If you wish to linger, that’s fine. Then, for another minute, imagine what good things would come about if you did manage to solve your drinking problem.
Well, in conclusion, I encourage you to consider whether or not it is wise for you to tell others that serious drinking problems is caused by the disease of alcoholism. It seems to me that even if you do believe that it is a disease, there are enough people promoting this idea so for those who are open to that belief, they already believe it is a disease and need no further push in that direction from you. However, each time you tell people you think it is a disease, you risk the possibility that some who hear will lose respect for you because they will view your attitude as a base attempt at eliminating essential responsibility from people who would be far better off accepting responsibility for their actions. 
On this blog, I have been making the case that how we respond to criticism can have an enormous influence on how much respect others have for us. To support this position, from time to time I provide a tentative outline of five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, with level 1 being viewed as the most immature, I give specific examples of people using the different levels, and I discussed the consequences of responding at each level.
A very disturbing example of someone responding to criticism has now crashed upon the international stage. I am referring to the actions of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the US CIA and many others who have reviewed the evidence, the Prince ordered the murder of the Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi because the reporter criticized him. The details are gruesome, with those who carried out the deed actually using a bone saw to cut him into pieces.
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
The Saudi Kingdom, an absolute monarchy, has long imprisoned its own citizens who criticize the government. However, entities outside of the Kingdom, when criticizing the Saudis, found that it was typically handled quietly, with the Saudis usually ignoring them. Things began to change when the Prince gained power.
In August 2018, when Canada criticized the recent arrests of Saudi rights activists, the Prince threatened to break trade agreements with Canada and to break off trade with other Western countries if they, too, spoke out about political repression in the kingdom. An additional threat involved an unspecified, tit-for-tat response to further criticism, 
The Prince’s threats, it seems to me, clearly results in a rating of 2 because it matches the level 2 phrase, Threatens the criticizer. His other actions clearly results in a rating of 1 because actions such as breaking off trade and withdrawing thousands of students are costly, thus they are a fairly good match with the level 1 phrase, Damages Property. The murder is clearly a level 1 response because it matches the level 1 phrase, Physically attacks the criticizer. Overall, I think the Prince deserves a rating of 1.
The experiences of Joni Mitchell (see 
To continue this series on the experiences of famous persons who dealt with depression, I just finished reading a wonderful book titled, Lincoln’s Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness, by Joshua Wolf Shenk.
I actually began discussing the book in my last post, which has the title, “
Lincoln, up till his mid-twenties, was not viewed as being a melancholy kind of guy. Friends and neighbors saw him as sunny and persisting tirelessly. For example, during the Black Hawk War, a fellow soldier said of him, “I never saw Mr Lincoln angry or desponding, but always cheerful… the whole company, even amid trouble and suffering, received strength and fortitude, by his buoyancy and elasticity.” Also typical of comments made of him, a neighbor said, “He was the best natured man I ever got acquainted with.”
Oh, there is evidence of cracks in his sunny disposition during his early years, but they occurred during times of great disappointments, which is pretty typical of most people. For example, after he and a partner opened a store and it soon failed, as we might expect, some described him as moping around, and one person reported hearing him say he might “let the whole thing go.”
…after that event he seemed quite changed, he seemed retired, and loved solitude, he seemed wrapped in profound thought, indifferent, to transpiring events, had little to say, but would take his gun and wander off in the woods by himself, away from associations of even those most esteemed, this gloom seemed to deepen for some time, so as to give anxiety to friends in regard to his mind.
The next period in which people who knew Abe clearly saw he was very depressed began at the beginning of January of 1841. Letters reveal how concerned people became. “We have been very much distressed on Lincoln’s account,” wrote one person. “Lincoln you know was desponding & melancholy when you left,” wrote another. “He has grown much worse and is now confined to his bed sick in body & mind,” wrote another.
For not giving you a general summary of news, you must pardon me, it is not in my power to do so. I am now the most miserable man living. If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be one cheerful face on the earth. Whether I shall ever be better I can not tell; I awfully forebode I shall not. To remain as I am is impossible; I must die or be better, it appears to me.
Some people experience depression, and then they have a “breakthrough” or “turning point,” and it goes away. This is what happened to Leo Tolstoy.
He spent an increasing amount of time alone, which can be profoundly important as people come to terms with loss, and sort out their ideas. Crucially important for him is that he found a cause that provided him a reason to live.
He yoked his feelings to a style…of melancholy that was, more than anything, philosophical. He saw the world as a sad, difficult place from which he expected considerable suffering. “There was a strong tinge of sadness in Mr Lincoln composition,” said his friend Joseph Gillespie. “He felt very strongly that there was more of discomfort than real happiness in human existence under the most favorable circumstances and the general current of his reflections was in that channel.” 
When Abraham Lincoln was 19, several neighbors were assigned to inform him of the heart wrenching news that his sister had died. As one of them described the incident, “We went out and told Abe. I never will forget the scene. He sat down in the door of the smokehouse and buried his face in his hands. The tears slowly trickled from between his boney fingers and his giant frame shook with sobs.”
Crying is as Natural as a Smile On a Baby’s Face
In Lincoln’s Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness, the author, Joshua Wolf Shenk, tells us that when Abe was particularly sad, his friends’ reactions are insightful. They didn’t merely seek to help him, they vied with each other for the pleasure or honor of assisting him.
So far, I provided arguments that crying is natural because it encourages others to help and it is an important part of the creative process. If this is true, how can we explain why people become embarrassed about crying and frequently apologize for doing so?
Using this line of reasoning, it makes sense that although the usual characteristic of human beings is to feel sympathy for someone who is crying, nevertheless, there is some variation around this central tendency. Thus, some people are less sympathetic, and some may be so unsympathetic that they treat people who cry very disrespectfully. They might call the person a “cry baby,” or “immature,” or a “wimp,” or if the person is a male, “unmanly.”
Add to this that in our society, a new trend has added fuel to the idea that people who cry have something wrong with them. A billion dollar industry that sells antidepressants have enormous resources to saturate the media with sales pitches that seek to convince people that crying is a symptom of a serious mental illness that urgently needs to be treated with some drug.
You gotta accent-u-ate the positive,
Squashing the tears, rushing through the insulting scripts with words like, “wimp,” “momma’s boy,” “weakling,” “mentally ill,” etc., along with all of the negative emotions that accompany these words, leave us with far less of the energy that we would otherwise be able to call upon to address the cause of our sadness. Moreover, feeling like there is something wrong with us when we experience sensitive feelings results in millions of us turning to alcohol and drugs, which typically results in a number of unhealthy side effects.
At such times, as soon as you can, go to a place where you can have some alone time, preferably in a pleasant place out in nature, but even a bathroom will do in a pinch.
Observe them like you were a scientist objectively observing a flock of birds flying by, off in a distant sky.
Here’s another great exercise that I recommend. Over the course of four days, write for a minimum of 15 minutes at each sitting about something that has led you to experience sadness. As you do so, make sure you include not only what happened, but also what you felt when it happened, and how you now feel about what happened. Include your deepest emotions and thoughts about what occurred. Really let go and explore your feelings and thoughts about it. As you do so, recall the sensory experience of these feelings, not just the words that define the experience. After you finish the day’s writing assignment, read it over, and if you had called yourself any unkind names, cross them out, and read, once again, what you had written without any of the nasty name calling.
This assignment, like the other, does not cost any money, and by the time you finish this assignment, you will probably find you have made friends with your sad experiences. However some people may feel they have a few steps left to go before fully embracing sadness.
As I explained in another post about ruminating on certain anger experiences, meditation can be very helpful in dealing with any distressing ruminating experiences. You can learn how to meditate for free by clicking 
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As regular readers well know, from time to time I present discussions about the value of dealing with criticism in a manner that can enhance the respect people have for us. I began these discussions by describing how I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors displaying different styles of responding to criticism. 
Then I asked a wide range of people over several years to watch the shows and discuss their reactions.
To familiarize readers with the five levels, from time to time, I provide real life examples of people dealing with criticism and then ask readers to rate how the criticism had been handled. This week, while thinking about what my next example might be, a new real life example arose as I watched a tennis match between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka. The two stars were playing at the U.S. Open to determine which would be the women’s national champion.
Before providing the five levels, I want to make sure that readers understand that they are not to be viewed as items written in stone. There may be some situations that might alter someone’s view of what is an ideal response. And individuals are of course entitled to make their own personal set of levels. Nevertheless, the levels are useful because they are generally viewed by a wide range of people in a variety of situations to match their own perceptions of what is a respected response to criticism. Thus, it provides us a way to debate its flaws and strengths, and in the end, we come away having deepened our thinking about important issues.
In the first set, Naomi looked impressive, beating the enormously talented Serena, 6-2.
Serena, upon hearing that a warning had been issued, approached chair umpire Ramos and, from her comments, it became apparent she believed Mr. Ramos had criticized her for cheating. Thus she said assertively, “You may have thought that was coaching, but I’m telling you it was not. I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.”
Throwing a racket is an automatic code violation, and because it was Serena’s second violation, Naomi gained a point for the next game. Ramos had clearly announced, “Code violation, racket abuse, point penalty, Mrs. Williams.”
When Ramos explained that Serena had a point penalty for smashing her racket, she calmly said, “Yeah, that’s a warning.” Then chair umpire Ramos explained that she already had a warning for the coaching violation, and here Serena raised her voice, and looking exasperated, cried out, “I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat. I didn’t get coaching!”
Finally, returning to play, Serena loses the next game, and the game after that, handing the lead over to Naomi, 4-3.
Ramos said something I couldn’t make out, and then Serena yelled, “You will never, ever, be on the same court as me as long as you live!” She then called Ramos a liar as he is looking squarely at her, and leaning his body to her, clearly listening to what she had to say.
Ramos can then be seen in video recordings complying with this request, turning his body and eyes to face a direction away from Serena.
She didn’t seem to understand this, so Ramos called both players over to his chair and clearly explained what the situation is. Serena responded by laughing, and asked, “Are you kidding me?”
Serena now began to make her case to the highest official at the U.S. Open, during which she began to cry. “You know my character,” she said, “and this is not right. This has happened too many times, this is not fair. To lose a game for saying that, this is not fair. Do you know how many men do much worse than that, this is not fair. Because I’m a woman, you are going to take this away from me. You know it, and I know you can’t admit it, but I know you know it.”
When Serena returned to play, it was Naomi’s turn to serve. Naomi easily won that game, and, consequently, the match and the U.S. Open Championship.
After the final point, Serena, graciously walked over to Naomi and gave her a hug.
Moments later, the master of ceremony announced it was time to present the trophies, and another round of boos were heard. Naomi once again began to cry. Serena put her arms around Naomi, smiled, and said she was proud of her and that she should know that the crowd wasn’t booing at her. Naomi returned a genuine smile.
When it was Serena’s turn to say something during the awards ceremony, she graciously said, while choking back tears, “She played well, and this is her first grand slam, and I know that you guys were rooting, and I was rooting too, but let’s make this the best moment that we can. We’ll get through this, but, let’s give everyone the credit where credit is due, and let’s not boo anymore, we’re going to get through this and let’s be positive. Congratulations Naomi. No more booing. Thank you to my team, you guys are amazing.” Serena, begins to wipe away her tears, which were streaming from her eyes. She manages to continue, saying, “Thank you to the crowd, you guys are the best in the world. Thank you so much, and I really hope to go again to continue to play here again. We’ll see. It was a tough year for me, but thank you so much.”
Mr. Ramos listened attentively, and nodded his head. Serena then went back to the game.
If there was less pressure to proceed with the game, I would have liked her to have said to Ramos something like, “I think that the coaching code violation means you are accusing me of being a cheater. Is that right?” I say this, because the phrase in the level 4 description which states, “make it clear that they fully understand what was said,” means that the person criticized would first restate the criticism, as he or she understands it, and then ask if this restatement is correct. If Serena had done so, I think Ramos would have said something like, “I’m not accusing you of cheating. I’m saying your coach has violated, in my opinion, the code that says there is to be no coaching during a U.S. Open match. It was entirely on this basis that I issued you a warning.”
The next such act occurred when Serena hit a backhand into the net for an unforced error, allowing Naomi to win her second game of the second set. At this point, Serena was still in the lead, 3-2. Nevertheless, her response to losing that game was to fling her racket into the ground, breaking it. Thus, it seems to me, that she had criticized herself for her unforced error, and responded by destroying her property. This is clearly a level one response. Ramos penalized Serena one point for the next game.
This example of dealing with criticism provides us a fine example in which people, when criticized, are not just upset because of the criticism, but also the consequences of receiving the criticism. Oftentimes the consequences are not as obvious as in this case. Here we plainly see that Serena received a warning, which was, at the time, reasonably assumed to be of little consequence. However, when she broke her racket, because she already had a warning, she now had lost a point. When she called Ramos a thief, the clear consequence was losing an entire game, and, consequently dramatically increased the chances of losing the entire match. She was also subsequently docked by the tournament referee’s office $17,000 ($10,000 for “verbal abuse” of chair umpire Carlos Ramos, $4,000 for being warned for coaching, and $3,000 for breaking her racket).
“I was at a family birthday party, we were all eating together at this long table with all sorts of wonderful foods laid out. I was thoroughly enjoying my plate along with my mom and sister. Then this little girl who was probably a year or two younger than me looks at me and says ‘Why are you so fat?’
To address this question, I’m going to present a little scenario that kinda describes what I have done over the years when I found myself providing counseling to someone dealing with this issue. In saying the scenario “kinda” describes what I have done I mean to indicate that it really is, by necessity, a shortened description of what actually occurs in my actual counseling sessions. More specifically, in real life sessions I spend distinctly more intervals of time listening in a caring way than we will see in the scenario. I ask more questions to clarify what specifically occurred in any event being described. I am more likely to slightly rephrase what the person had said so they see that I understand what I have been listening to, thus reassuring them I’m really deeply listening. A full rendition of such a counseling session would be a fifty-minute read, way too long for our purposes.
She played parts in numerous movies such as ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘Show Boat.’ It wasn’t just me who delighted in her character portrayals, many producers must have liked her too because they selected her to play in over 300 movies, and her peers selected her to win an Academy Award. She wasn’t just a movie actress, she also was a singer and song writer as well. The United States honored her with a U.S. postage stamp for her contributions to the arts.
They also had faces that can lead one to drift into a dream. As it turned out, there were not a whole lot of such women around my neighborhood, and yet I did start to date. On some scales, those that I dated did not match the perfect Hollywood type here or there but I found I was still attracted to them. In time I got to know things about them that transcended mere looks. When I met my wife, she was wearing braces on her teeth, hardly a classic Hollywood look.
“And judging from my observations, most women that I knew during my dating days were willing to go out with guys who didn’t look exactly like Cary Grant or Robert Redford. After a while they found someone that had looks that fell short of what some might think of as perfect in every way, and nevertheless, they fell in love and got married.
“I see.” I pause here for a few seconds, just experiencing within me strong empathy for what Heather has been going through, and also seeking a way toward some peace with it.
“The exercise comes from several ancient wisdom traditions. It is part of what has been called ‘mindfulness.’ There is a theory that it deepens our stressful experiences in a way that perhaps leads us to take some positive actions to deal better with them.”
“If you like, we could work on that together. I think we would want to include not only eating less, but also eating healthy foods and getting sufficient exercise.”
In any case, may you all find someone who will show you kindness as you meet up with all of your challenging experiences.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. On this blog, from time to time, we have been discussing depression. To help us better understand this deeply troubling experience, we have looked at the biographies of several individuals who, despite their mighty struggles with depression, still managed to earn the respect of millions. Today, we quickly review three of these biographies, that of the brilliant psychologist and philosopher William James, the remarkable musical performer Joni Mitchell, and the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy.
Finally, in an earlier post (see 
Wrenshall Smith encountered him returning from the battle and depicted him as “much depressed. He dismounted and took a seat on the stone. What is the situation, I asked? Bad–very bad, he replied.” Samuel Beckwith noticed that after Cold Harbor Grant’s face developed “a careworn expression that indicated sleepless nights and fearsome days.” When he delivered a message to the general’s tent, he found him sunk in thought. After absorbing the telegram, Grant sighed, “Beckwith,” he said, “the hardest part of this General business is the responsibility for the loss of one’s men. I can see no other way out of it, however; we’ve got to keep at them. But it is hard, very hard, to see all these brave fellows killed and wounded. It means aching hearts back home.”
The doctors’ statements about this imply that if treated with “antidepressants” this can decrease the risk of suicide enough so that the depressed patient, by taking the drug, is better off than facing the risk of any adverse effects of the drug. But the doctors don’t know what the long term effects of taking the drugs are. What’s more, the scientific evidence currently available indicates that these drugs do not reduce the risk of suicide, and may actually increase it by as much as 8 percent (see 
This alternative is uplifting, less stigmatizing, and conducive to a recovery point of view. It is a view that posits that depression has the potential to open our eyes to the fullness of truth. The suffering that goes along with the experience is a natural part of life, a view held by Nietzsche, as well as Buddhists and many other wisdom traditions. Additionally, it is an enormous source for creativity, and as we go through it, it can lead to one insight after another.
This is an important lesson for so many of us who were brought up being taught to feel embarrassed and guilty when experiencing deeply sad emotions. In fact, for those who were brought up this way, they often believe that it is proper to lose respect for people who experience such emotions. They often end up having, each time they, personally, experience depression, a double depression. That is, not only do they at times begin to become depressed because of the reasons that would normally lead to feelings of melancholy, but they are additionally depressed about feeling that there is something terribly wrong with them, that they have bad genes and a stigmatizing illness requiring medication with all kinds of negative side-effects.
Giving up this tendency to feel a double depression for those who learned it throughout their childhood and well into their adult life often requires a relationship with someone providing quality social ties and social support. Substantial evidence (see 
Although it is least expensive to receive this kind of support from warm, close friends and family members, sometimes those whom we are most close to hold the very same pathologizing beliefs that is holding one back from real recovery. At such times, finding a professional personal counselor who does not hold to the pathologizing point of view can be enormously helpful if the financial situation can be reasonably worked out. Discussions with the professional who typically responds in a very supportive manner, models for the person receiving counseling the type of skills that is helpful when we look within as we experience melancholy. Instead of berating ourselves for acting pathological, we come to learn to be kind to ourselves and to nurse hope that something positive will come from what we are going through.
Some non-pathologizing counselors will also encourage you to learn to meditate and utilize other mindfulness techniques. Here you practice observing your physical sensations when you are dealing with the disrespectful perceptions. In time, the disrespectful words that you tend to direct at yourself come to lose their disturbing nature. For a period of time these words still come, but you end up smiling at them as you realize they are not matching reality. In time, they may completely fade away as you embrace the physical sensations that come with melancholy.
Now, I understand that many people will find it hard to find in their community the type of counseling services I am describing. This may be because many professional counselors have adopted the same pathologizing approaches as psychiatrists, although they do believe counseling services, when combined with drug treatment, can be beneficial. For those who would like to work with a non-pathologizing personal counselor but find it difficult to find one within a convenient distance from home, I highly recommend two who can work with you individually via Skype–my son, Jack Star Rubin, and his lovely wife, Emily Whyte Rubin (see 
Many people have come to feel that the psychiatric profession has failed to treat them respectfully. Several issues have inflamed them, arguably the most emotional being involuntary drug treatment which, to them, is often viewed as torture.
“(a) Review the anti-torture framework in relation to persons with disabilities in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as authoritative guidance regarding their rights in the context of health-care;
Involuntary psychiatric interventions are legitimized under national laws, and may enjoy wide public support as being in the alleged “best interest” of the person concerned, or because it protects people in the community from the violence that some people labelled mentally ill will carry out. Nevertheless, according to the UN report, “…to the extent that they inflict severe pain and suffering, they violate the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
When people are forced to take psychiatric drugs, it often feels like torture because of a number of their side effects. For example, akathisia makes it hard to stay still. It causes an urge to move that you can’t control. You might need to fidget all the time, walk in place, or cross and uncross your legs. Akathisia is often hard to describe, and it can take over a person’s life and feel awful.
Tardive dyskinesia occurs at a cumulative rate of 4-7% per year in otherwise healthy, relatively young patients treated with many of the so-called antipsychotic drugs. After only a few years, 20% or more of those treated will be afflicted with tardive dyskinesia. Older patients have an even higher risk.
According to the 
Individuals who are male teenagers or young adults are also more at risk of violence than the average person in a given population. Thankfully, for my two sons, our society does not require that all of these at risk individuals be placed on psychiatric drugs.
The best scientific analysis that looks at whether or not the drugs significantly reduce violence when involuntarily administered has been provided by the nonprofit group called Cochrane (see 
The best predictors of future violence are a history of past violent crime, victimization, involvement with illegal drugs and drug markets, poverty, life trauma exposure, and ambient neighborhood crime. When these factors are not present for an individual, being classified as mentally ill is not related to violence. Rather than the vague notion of mental illness, it appears that these are the real factors that lead to the statistically modest increased risk of violence among those labelled as mentally ill because such labelled individuals are more likely to be exposed to these risk factors (see 
Clearly, people in our communities have justification to want to keep people from harming themselves or others. I know I don’t want violent people running around my neighborhood. However, the use of psychiatric drugs too often lead people to think that the mental health professionals did what was needed, and thus reduces the necessary motivation to advocate for more helpful action. In my view, there are far better ways to address these concerns without any need for involuntary treatment or torturing anyone.
First of all, we already have laws for someone who commits a violent crime. I support these laws because without them many people who might otherwise act violently find that to avoid prison time they can choose a nonviolent alternative, thus making our communities safer. For those who fail to choose nonviolent ways to deal with life challenges, the law requires that they serve time in prison. Removing them from our communities for a period of time leads to our communities being safer, and gives the person who committed the crime an opportunity to consider better alternatives to deal with the type of situation that led to their incarceration. Moreover, as they serve time in prison, they become older, thus they enter an age range that leads to more thoughtful considerations and a much lower likelihood of choosing violent options.
Now, I hasten to point out that many prison officials believe that when people serve time they should be punished in degrading ways. But most people placed in prison, whether they are displaying behavior that often leads one to receive a mental illness label or not, are best treated with respect and dignity. The vast majority will eventually return to our neighborhoods and to traumatize them with abusive actions while they are in prison increases the risk that they will become less than ideal citizens. There are a number of countries that have been trying out more humanistic approaches to treating prisoners and the results have been very promising.
For those people who are at risk of violence, we can incentivize them to learn nonviolent ways to deal with the kinds of anger arousing situations that they may potentially face. For example, people who have been convicted of a violent crime and are serving out their sentence can be incentivized to learn prosocial skills by reducing their sentence a month if they demonstrate mastery of the skills. People at risk who are not incarcerated may be offered some other incentives such as access to better housing, or even be provided a monetary incentive that is about the same amount as the combined cost of a drug management program. Drug management typically includes the cost for the drugs plus the time for professionals to assess, prescribe, and monitor the patient. Monitoring the patient includes regular meetings to assess drug side-effects, readjust the medication dose, prescribe a different or additional drug, and sending out a social worker or nurse to remind patients to take their prescriptions. These costs are significant and if redirected to incentivizing people at risk, it would lead to a significant level of voluntary participation.
What would a program that teaches nonviolent ways to deal with anger arousing situations look like? Teachers would identify their student’s pattern of anger expression and the situations in which the student typically experiences anger. Responding to criticism and providing criticism are particularly hot spots, so they would be the focus of early lessons (see 
In a 
In a second 