"Stop the presses! He found something he didn't hate!"

If only to refute the skeptics who claim that I'm never happier than when I make life sound as dark and hopeless as possible, I'm ever on the lookout for things I can point to in the SHAMscape that may actually be worthwhile (or at least less fraudulent than the rest of it). Such is the basis for today's post, which focuses on a segment I saw earlier on Good Morning America; it featured Lisa Drayer, well-known nutrition expert and a marquee Women's Health columnist, giving advice about vitamin consumption. At this point faithful readers will be doubly surprised, because anyone who's been following along, or who has simply read SHAM, realizes that I'm not terribly high on Rodale, which publishes Women's Health.* It's not often you'll hear me get all warm and fuzzy over one of Rodale's products, plans, or personalities. And I'm not really doing that here, either. That said, I must compliment Women's Health and Ms. Drayer on the segment, citing the following three factors:

1. It was specific. Drayer didn't talk in touchy-feely vagueries about "empowering yourself to take control of your health." She talked about vitamin deficiencies that were likely to affect women, and why.

2. It was actionable. We do need a caveat here, and it comes in the form of the following clause: Assuming the science was sound.... That's always a huge "if," because a lot of these how-to programs, especially in the area of health maintenance, are based on flimsy science, and purposely so: For marketing reasons, it's important to sound like you have something "totally new!" to say, so con artists will pluck out a factoid here and a flawed study there and try to weave themselves a "breakthrough" program for weight control, disease prevention, whatever. So—assuming the science was sound—Drayer was direct and persuasive in her arguments for why women should use certain types of vitamins/supplements and avoid others. She backed up everything she said with credible info, or appeared to.**

3. It didn't overreach. Drayer didn't promise GMA's female viewers that if they followed the regimen she outlined, they'd live a wrinkle-free, forever-young existence in which they never got sick, their cellulite magically disappeared, and their breasts instantly swelled by two cup sizes. She simply said what she had to say about vitamins' role in nutrition and then, knowing that her 10-minute segment couldn't possibly answer all questions, directed viewers to Women's Health's website for further info.

Now, did she take that last step because she hopes to create more WH subscribers? Duh. But there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the people who subscribe get fair value in return. One of the biggest misconceptions that my critics try to spread about me is that "he's totally against people spending money to improve themselves!" Nonsense. I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm going to, once again: I don't oppose advice, per se. What I oppose is worthless, generic, overblown pseudo-advice that may well end up doing you significant harm, especially when it's rendered by self-appointed gurus (see under "Kevin Trudeau") who have no standing to be giving such advice in the first place and are, in too many cases, only in it for the money.

Damn. I guess I just couldn't stay positive all the way through, could I.

* and which, for the benefit of those who haven't read SHAM, was my last 9-to-5 employer as well. Between June 2000 and October 2001 I served as managing editor, then executive editor, of Men's Health Books.
** I didn't doublecheck her science. The utility of vitamin supplements as a class is increasingly controversial these days, so the question of which method of intake is "the best" may be a moot point, in the end. This is one of those topics we'll just have to monitor as time and science march forward.

"Come here, honey; let Mama help you be more self-sufficient."

Saw an interesting news feature Thursday night on parents who just can't let go. Over-parenting is no revelation in and of itself. We already know volumes about stage Moms and soccer Dads. More recently, we've heard a fair amount about so-called "helicopter Moms" who, most notoriously, get ultra-entangled in their kids' college lives. Aside from acting as their children's business managers and social secretaries, they'll try to micromanage affairs (as it were) in the dorm, sorority or frat house. They'll get on the phone with the profs, department chairs or even deans to secure a better grade for Brad or Heather. They'll inject themselves unashamedly into college elections. And so forth. Well, now it's progressed to the next stage: Seems they keep this up even after their kids go off into the world "on their own." The report I saw, on World News Tonight with Charles Gibson, focused on the growing number of parents—usually mothers—who get involved in their kids' lives at work, too. And we're not just talking about meddling in friendships or putting in their 3 cents regarding workplace romances; we're talking about the Mom who dials her kid's boss, or even someone in HR, to complain about the way her precious little progeny is being treated. These Moms will pester bosses about the workload, take it upon themselves to say the kid could use a (paid) day off, play an active role in office politics, and generally make a damned nuisance of themselves. Yes, they'll even ask for raises on their kids' behalf!

Helpful hint to any Moms who may be reading this and wondering if they're a little over-the-top when it comes to their grown kids: If you have your child's boss's phone number in speed-dial (or in your "Five," as that current cell-phone commercial puts it), it is a very bad sign.

Joking aside, it should be clear what's happening here. Parents who raised their kids in the era of self-esteem ("You are special!") and entitlement ("Don't let anyone rob you of your dreams!") have determined that they're going to ensure a smooth ride for Junior or Missy all the way through. And I'm betting that Junior and Missy—though they may put up a front of whining about it, just for show—are active accomplices in most cases, happily accepting whatever assistance Mom may wish to provide, and even dropping little hints about areas where Mom's intervention might be useful.*

I would ask only this: Is there not something slightly screwy about the kind of "self-esteem" that results from Mom pulling all the strings? And how "special" can a kid feel when he knows that Dad was cleaning up his mess every step of the way?

Just a thought.

P.S. Keep in mind also that this generation of Moms and Dads is the first to have read all the parenting books and watched all those touchy-feely parenting segments on the morning shows (e.g. with T. Berry Brazelton). Unlike their parents, who generally believed in greater discipline, this generation believed more in sparing the rod and spoiling the child. This spirit of super-indulgence, too, I blame on self-help's gurus: All those books didn't write themselves, after all.

* Remember the subtitle of my book: "How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless"? This is as good an example as you're apt to find.

A Secret political weapon in the making?

This may sound like a surprising admission from a guy (me) who usually goes to great lengths to point out SHAM's corrupting, all-pervading effect on society, but I would've thought we'd start seeing more of the rhetoric of The Secret (and related "thought") showing up in electoral politics by now. I caught most of the debate among Democrat contenders for the White House last night and heard very, very few references that sounded as though they might have been inspired by today's especially fanciful spin on Empowerment. Oh sure, there was a random nod to America learning to "believe in itself" again (I forget who said it) or restoring the nation's "confidence in its future," but one would expect such things to be said anyway, with or without an Empowerment backdrop. I think that both major parties are missing a sure bet here (and that a really shrewd Independent might be able to make impressive strides simply by learning to speak Byrnese). Given the 6 million or so Americans who've already voted for The Secret with their wallets—and the millions more who are aware of The Secret and have been at least indirectly influenced by it—I'd think this could make a nice constituency for someone, and an ideally gullible one at that. Secretrons clearly will believe just about anything.

But mark my words: Before all is said and done, we'll hear some of the patter from Barack Obama. Why? Chalk it up again to the so-called Oprah Effect. Oprah loves Obama, and in fact, has given him her informal endorsement. Oprah also loves The Secret (or at least professes to), and played a huge role in putting Byrne's baby over the top. As the presidential race moves into high gear, when every last polling point counts, she can be expected to tip Obama to some of the buzzwords and "magical phrases" that are bound to resonate with her vast audience of some 48 million weekly lemmings, uh, I mean viewers. Anyway, we'll see.

On an only tangentially related note, the debate reminded me of why I love Joe Biden, for all his well-reported slip-ups and gaffes. I don't know whether he's electable, or even whether I'd actually vote for him, if it came to that. But the guy is priceless in any case, and if you watched the debate (or saw the highlights), you know exactly the moment I'm talking about. He got more mileage out of one perfectly timed word—"Yes"—than, say, a Dennis Kucinich could get out of droning on and on about a new spirit of fairness in government for hours.

By the way... Had Mike Gravel been drinking? Or is he always like that?

Getting them in touch with their inner puppy.

Now that just about everyone who's apt to get caught up in The Secret already owns a copy, in all likelihood (some "6 million served!", as the famed McDonald's sign might put it)...and sales figures for Dr. Phil McGraw's most recent literary work, Love Smart, have (finally, mercifully) plateaued...and Dr. Laura's radio show appears to be losing market share faster than George Bush loses job-approval rating points...the SHAMsters may be planning a species jump. Like fleas in reverse, some of them are beginning to hop off of us and onto man's best friend. Read 'em and weep.

Whaddya know. I wrote a self-help book after all.

A few weeks ago I received what is surely the most cynical email I've gotten in response to SHAM—though not "cynical" in the way you're probably thinking. In the email, you see, an individual whom we'll call Pat admits to having found great and unexpected utility in my book: Apparently, Pat* and spouse, who together run a thriving dermatology practice, are using the book as a road map to perpetrating SHAM-based marketing methods on their unsuspecting customers.

"I haven't finished your book yet," Pat writes, "but the first 120 pages gave me a lot of ideas to put into action. And they all seem to be working... Your book helps me understand and profit from [today's pop culture]. What used to annoy and frustrate me now makes me money."

Pat does provide an alibi/disclaimer of sorts. Noting that self-help methodology, like any philosophical system, can be "used for good or evil," Pat writes, "I would like to think that my spouse's medical practice uses it for a good purpose. ('Pay attention to your skin. Don't die from anything as curable as skin cancer.')" However, Pat continues, "And when you get middle-aged women paying attention to their skin, they're not just checking moles; they focus in on wrinkles and signs of aging. We can fix that, too, but it's all out of pocket. So the middle-aged woman will whip out the gold card if she feels empowered: She's taking control of her skin! How thrilling! How lucrative!"

These days, Pat tells me, patients "get one of two messages: you are a victim; or you are empowered. We are tapping into the feelings of guilt and vanity of Baby Boomers and their parents.... Older patients are 'Victims of Skin Cancer' while the Boomers are 'Empowered to Take Care of Their Skin Issues' (Botox, wrinkle fillers, skin care products). Put another way, the medical side of the practice sells results while the cosmetic side sells hope." And since "Botox and wrinkle fillers wear off in 4 months—talk about built-in 'failure and stagnation**,' " Pat observes that "your past customer is also your future customer. Gravity doesn't take a vacation. And they're OK with that. They book the 4-month follow-up on their way out the door."

As for the "ancillaries," Pat explains, again invoking SHAM, "The stuff we sell is only available through plastic surgeons and dermatologists, and everything is part of a 'package' or 'system'... They don't want just the sun screen; they want the system with the moisturizer, cleanser, foundation and sun screen," all of it at profit margins that "would make local crack dealers take pre-med classes." Indulging what I think is a quick flight of fancy, Pat says, "Now if I could come up with a website (for paying members) that tracked that member's local weather forecast, including UV index rating, humidity, temperature and maybe the pollen count, the computer could customize the type of moisturizer, sun screen SPF and the like to be worn that day.... Would anybody pay for a 'Personal Skin Care Coach'?"

In the course of all this, Pat and spouse have noticed firsthand what seems to be one of the defining traits of the SHAMscape: that "a big chunk of our affluent population will pay real money for the most banal, obvious advice. How can our population be so affluent and yet so damn helpless?... Who can resist not trying to get in on the action?" Pat illustrates: "A female executive came in as a patient on Friday. This woman can slit throats in the board room... Yet she's scared silly of [people thinking she's getting old], so she came in for Botox, wrinkle fillers and hope-in-a-jar cosmetics ('cosmeceuticals')." The woman left the office with a substantially lighter wallet, but "on an emotional high that rivals a spiritual awakening. After reading SHAM, we now know how to market to her; what her expectations are; and how to make her feel fulfilled."

"Where," Pat later asks mordantly, "does the current (ahem) legitimate practice end and the joke begin? So SHAM has 'helped' grown adults 'get in touch with their feelings'? Hey, I've got a 3-year-old kid who's in touch with his feelings! SHAM has turned adults into children, and then it tries to turn them into adults again—collecting money on both ends of the trip. Wow."

Rousing to a finish, Pat offers an intriguing sociological observation that echoes what I say in my epilogue (quoting a former student) about my book being akin to "a work of anthropology": "Is it ridiculous to suggest plotting the revenue of SHAM against the growth in disposable income generated by women? At least on the Empowerment side? I think the timelines are similar." And finally: "Your book is about much more than the [self-help movement]. It's about modern America. A poor country could never support such an industry.”

God how I wish I'd said such things in SHAM!

* I'm using the androgynous "Pat," a la those old SNL skits, in further protection of the individual's identity, which "Pat" requested. For similar reasons, I have made minor edits and cuts in the text that was originally provided to me via email.
** an apparent reference to my observation, on page 7 of SHAM, that "failure and stagnation are central to all of SHAM. The self-help guru has a compelling interest in not helping people."

"Let's have a frank discussion. Just be careful what you say."

My daughter called last night with news of two California schools that were in lock-down late last week because of students who, during classroom discussion, appeared sympathetic to Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho. One student supposedly said, "I can see something like that happening here, the way things are in this school." The second student said something like, "Not everybody is actually going to go through with it, but with a lot of us, the desire is there. I know there are times I've felt that way." Both were males, both were arrested. Neither was armed. The latter student was suspended for the balance of the semester.

Two things here. First, what happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"?*

Second, and more important, how are we to access kids' thoughts, to get to the bottom of these feelings of estrangement and fulminating violence, if the first thing we do when kids voice antisocial sentiments is cuff them? How are we to have any hope of drawing people out in order to catch the ones who need help before they reach the breaking point? Seems to me that if you're going to say, "Let's talk things out in class," you should be willing to accommodate points of view beyond, "Gee, how horrible that was, let's all go out and build a nice memorial..." All we're doing here is driving the rage deeper underground, thereby ensuring that we won't learn what's really in their heads and hearts till the day they do bring a gun to school.

* The line is widely attributed to Voltaire, though he probably never said it, at least not in those words. Regardless, it was, of course, a cornerstone of American democracy and the free-speech protections that eventually were built into the Bill of Rights.

Ever get the feeling they haven't really thought things through?

So the talking heads on FOX appear to believe that tragedies such as what we witnessed at VTech could be averted—or at least more quickly ended—by, basically, arming everybody. "If one of those students had a gun," Geraldo opined to a nodding Bill O'Reilly tonight, "he could've plugged the guy." It's a view that I've heard expressed with some regularity, of late, by law-and-order types who are frustrated and outraged by what happened in Virginia.

OK, fine. I guess I buy the idea that every time a latent psycho goes berserk at a school and embarks on a senseless murder spree in which he kills a dozen-or-so people, which happens at least—well, three times, now, in U.S. history—the calamity could be brought to an end by an armed student, or teacher, or passerby, or street person.

What about the rest of the time?? Are you freakin' kidding me? Do you really derive comfort from envisioning a campus full of armed binge drinkers? How many chest-thumping incidents that are now settled with a push and a shove, or maybe a few inept college-boy punches, would be solved instead, and irrevocably, with a 9-millimeter? Even if more guns do help us tamp down on the Columbines, how many innocents are bound to get caught in the cross-fire of the mini-skirmishes that arise on any given weekend over girls and games and grades and scratched cars? Add to that the accidents that inevitably would result from turning your typical frat house into the Corleone Family's gun closet. Add to that the convenience of having a sidearm around when you're planning a date-rape. And finally, how many felons who couldn't get guns through the usual means would come to regard colleges as candy stores—sneaking into dorms while the kids are in class and looking for anything that fires bullets? (Oh wait, I forget: The students are all carrying their guns to class. And won't that be nice for the profs! But then, of course, the profs will be packin' heat, too. Uh-huh.... Great campus atmosphere.)

No offense intended to our ultra-responsible younger readers, but speaking in generalities, it's bad enough that these kids drive and have sex. Now the guy wants to arm them all?

Having written most of this post in a voice somewhere between snide and insufferable, let me concede here that this is another one of those very difficult issues. Emotions run high. So at this point one hesitates to dismiss any possible solution out of hand. But people, come on. There are no push-button fixes here. And if there are, certainly Geraldo's isn't one of them.

Maybe someday, once everyone has high self-esteem, we can all be rage killers.

Interestingly enough, more and more observers, both in and out of the media, are climbing on the narcissism bandwagon in their attempts to "explain the inexplicable," otherwise known as the Virginia Tech shooting rampage. This surprises me, since it very much goes against the grain of the pat story line in covering these tragedies, which historically (mis?)labels such killers "people with no sense of self-worth." As one psychologist put it last night (I'm paraphrasing but it's close), "If you truly lack self-worth, you might kill yourself—and even suicide can be very much a narcissistic act, depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, the rage killer who's not satisfied unless he takes a lot of other people with him first—that kind of individual probably thinks way too much of himself and his role in life." And death. It's a perspective that's supported by the tapes killer Seung-Hui Cho sent to NBC, which underscore his messianic self-appraisal and clarify the "message" that this slaughter was supposed to impress on America-at-large.

Still, very few of these same observers trace the malaise back to what is, at least in my view, its roots. For more than a generation we've been telling kids, "You're special! You're amazing! You can be/do/have anything/anyone you want! Never give up your dreams!" And yet we react with such clueless astonishment and wide-eyed horror when kids who've been unusually frustrated in their efforts to find the adulation they "deserve," and who were always a little bit "out there" (as this guy clearly was), act out in rage.

Just mark my words: We're haven't heard the last from Jack Canfield and the rest of the self-esteem set, who made their fortunes* selling a totally untested principle to unsuspecting school systems; they'll come out of hiding when the time is right in order to trumpet that same old argument about how the real problem in society is that kids still don't think enough of themselves.

* And still make a fair chunk of change today, doing "uplifting" programs and designing self-esteem-based curricula. You think they want to see that golden goose disappear?

Love me as much as I love myself...or I'll shoot you.

From time to time I like to watch the BBC's coverage of world events. When one does so, the smallest things—like the fact that they use our president's full name in identifying him (i.e. including the "George")—remind you that we're not alone in the world, and there are other ways of interpreting the developments that U.S. media cover in such myopic fashion. And of course, the Brits, having long since forgotten that little unpleasantness of 231 years ago, are generally sympathetic to America and its goals. You'll get an even more eye-opening look at the news if you sample the coverage on, say, Al Jazeera (which, for example, gives second-tier importance to the Virginia Tech shootings on its front page today. The headline story is, "Iran to 'cut off the hand' of foes"). Just be careful: Spend too much time on the Al Jazeera site nowadays and you'll end up on some watch list, with some goon in Langley opening your emails even before you do each morning.

Anyway, leaving aside Al Jazeera, yesterday and last night the Virginia shootings were the wall-to-wall topic everywhere else, including the BBC. I tuned in just in time to catch the tail end of an interview one of their reporters had with a psychologist, whose name I did not get. I apologize for that oversight, and for the fact that I haven't had time to chase this down today. I fall back only on the excuse that I've got a very busy schedule ahead of me, and on the promise that in the remarks that follow, I'm being faithful to what that psychologist said.

A few more caveats. (I sear to you, there's a point here, eventually.) Some of SHAM's critics accused me of trying to tie up self-help's impact on society in too neat a package. They said I was "overreaching" in blaming so many of our woes on pop psychology, and though I don't agree, I don't want readers to think I'm overreaching here. Nor do I want to be perceived as using the terrible events at VTech as a prop, a cheap excuse for dumping still more grief at the foot of self-help's shaky altar. Finally, let's remember that what I heard last night was nothing more than the opinion of a random psychologist—and when it comes to psychologists' opinions, there may be an extra dollop of truth to that crude old line about the body part that opinions most resemble. However, let's also remember that what was said, was said by a man who is credentialed in his field, unlike so many of self-help's resident gurus. So, though I claim no cosmic validity for what follows, I thought it was worth throwing into the dialogue.

This psychologist told his BBC interviewer that he attributed events like the explosion of rage on the VTech campus to the climate of narcissism and uber-self-interest that flourishes among the current generation: Young people have been conditioned to be so naturally and obsessively focused on their own lives and needs, and have such expectations of having those needs met, that they're basically unprepared for life's normal disappointments, once they begin to encounter them. To too many young people, he argued, there is no longer any such thing as a "slight"; that is, no grievance or affront is minor. Amid this climate, the psychologist continued, a person with other baseline maladjustments would be unable to shrug off day-to-day annoyances—to say, "Oh well, that's life." Such an individual might overreact, perceiving commonplace setbacks and interpersonal upsets as apocalyptic wounds that cry out for vengeance and, indeed, make life itself no longer worth living.

If you have a copy of SHAM handy, take another look at chapter 10, on the dangers of self-esteem-based education and the unexpected and counterintuitive dangers of self-esteem per se, as diagnosed by Roy Baumeister and others. See if this all fits together for you. As I said, just a thought.

The Secret to losing your house?

A regular contributor tipped me to a female Georgia SHAMpreneur whose outgoing answering-machine message is as follows:

"You have reached [.....................], where we believe in doing well by doing good. I appreciate your call. Unfortunately, I'm unavailable, out building leaders and changing lives by Empowerment through self-care and wellness. If it suits your destiny, please leave a message. Until then, be well, and do good."

That's bad enough on its face—especially delivered as it is in the sort of dulcet, hypnotic tones we've come to expect from Rhonda Byrne herself, if you've heard her*. But what makes this truly classic is that this message of Empowerment speaks to us from a phone that is located in a house that is presently in foreclosure. That's right: The same guru who's out empowering leaders and changing lives can't seem to ensure the wellness of her own mortgage.** In fact, the person who tipped our SHAMblog contributor to the message was a buddy of his who buys distressed properties.

He quips: "I guess Citibank doesn't take positive energy as payment."

* The link in that line takes you to a page where you can download a sample of Byrne at her New Agey best.

** I'm not naming names and won't post the phone number for reasons that should be obvious; even kooks are entitled to their privacy rights. Nor do I want to chance revealing the identity of our tipster. But I dialed the number and heard the message, and I reproduce it for you here verbatim.

It couldn't have been much worse. But she tried, I'll give her that.

At this moment I am so enraged at CNN's Paula Zahn that I could spit. Tonight, she turned her 8 p.m. show into a tireless and unseemly campaign to bait shell-shocked Virginia Tech students into indicting the college for its failure to protect them. One after another, they refused to follow her lead, putting the spotlight back where it belonged, at least as they saw it this night: on the gunman or gunmen*, and the helpless victims. And still the controversy-minded Zahn would not be denied. She kept pressing, refusing to take no for an answer, at times trying to bully or browbeat the young collegians into agreeing that their college had to be at least partly responsible for the massacre. (And don't you know that if they'd given Zahn an inch, the resulting quote would've appeared in the crawl at the bottom of the screen within minutes: "College 'partly responsible,' says VTech student.") I give tremendous credit to Zahn's young guests, who, despite the circumstances and their obvious emotional disarray, stood their ground, taking the high road in the face of her assault.

Zahn's conduct of those interviews was deplorable—one of the tackiest and most egregious cases of media pot-stirring I've ever seen. Yes, even for a proven hack like Paula Zahn.

P.S. TUESDAY MORNING. One more glimpse of our glorious American media in action, while I'm still on the subject (and still angry as I awake): Having made such a weighty contribution to The Undoing of Don Imus via ceaseless "reporting" that framed Imus as The Very Face of Evil in American Life, journalists now transit to what is always the Clear Next Phase in a media crucifixation: the Contrition Stage, where the pundits purse their lips, wring their hands and begin to question "whether this whole thing might have been overblown" (!), whether Imus might have been a scapegoat/sacrificial lamb, etc. Note the more balanced, thoughtful tenor of the reporting on Imus now, compare it to the unalloyed outrage that suffused the reporting in the first few days of the scandal**, and tell me if I'm wrong. This is a purposely hyperbolic analogy, but it's kind of like a guy killing his wife and kids, crashing his car during the getaway, losing consciousness, developing amnesia, then hearing of the murders later and wondering "who could have done such a terrible thing...?"

* And incidentally, in every single report I've heard this morning (now Tuesday, April 17), the gunman is identified as "an Asian student." Why is the "Asian" necessary? If the student were white, would they say that? Or would they just leave the race unspoken (white presumably being the "default" racial identity of any given person in the media spotlight)? This is another subtle example of ways in which we seem to feel compelled to inject race and/or ethnicity into discussions where those elements—in my view—have no proper place. If the student were Islamic, and there were concerns about terrorism being a factor in the shootings, then I could see a case for race. But here? Especially since we've been told nothing else about this person and his motives. Why is it important to tell us that he's "Asian"?
** which Bill Maher and others have argued was itself a media invention, in large part.

Another ruby for Rhonda.

Found out during the course of this morning's radio work that The Secret Road Show and Barnstorming Motivational Circus breezed into Canada last week. An estimated 5000 people forked over $100 apiece to hear Rhonda Byrne's soothing, hypnotic incantations on the wonders of wishful thinking. I couldn't get a straight answer about whether Ms. Byrne appeared live*, or a set of eager apprentices/stand-ins (the Byrnettes; the Secretronics?) merely played excerpts from the same audiotape that most of my interviewers asked me to comment on. Regardless, if my math is correct, that's another half-mill in the till.

* I'll be looking into that.

Don't they have special websites for that?

Am I the only one who's vaguely tickled by the title of that new how-to book—Master Yourself—by Claudio Vargas Silva?

Silva is a self-described "physician" (it's in quotes, just like that, in the author's own press release) who found fulfillment, and now wants to put you on the path to same. He says his method is "hard work," but it's "possible to enjoy the process."

On the other hand, maybe these are the kinds of things that are only funny when you're up at 5 a.m., prepping for three hours of interviews about The Secret....

Ohhhh, Canada....

Again, not quite sure why the maple leaf set love me so...though several of you have advanced some excellent hypotheses (mostly serious and socially incisive, but also at least one hilariously profane possibility that I cannot repeat here). Whatever the reason, looks like I'll be doing a 3-hour coast-to-coast satellite hook-up organized by Canada's rough equivalent of NPR this Monday morning between 6 a.m. (yawn, stretch) and 9. Readers who happen to live within errant-hockey-puck-retrieving distance of the border may be able to pick up one of the segments. So far at least a dozen Canadian stations have signed on. Looks like the questioning will focus on—big surprise here—The Secret.

Maybe I should just move to Canada...?

A few thoughts on Jackie, genocide, etc.

If you follow baseball, or live with someone who follows baseball, or have recently been in a sports bar where a ballgame was being telecast, you know that this day marks the 60th anniversary of the game in which Jackie Robinson broke the color line in Major League Baseball. It's been almost impossible to miss the buzz. In honor of the occasion, players on many teams will today be wearing Robinson's number, 42, which was officially retired from baseball in 1997 (the 50th anniversary of the momentous event).

Race is not an easy subject. (Duh.) To say that my emotions here are "mixed" is like saying Pres. Bush has some image problems regarding his intellect. As you know, I'm not a fan of racial, ethnic or religious identity and/or pride. I believe that the more of our heritage and ancestry we're able to strip away, so that we value ourselves—and insist on being valued—strictly for the unique individuals we are, the better off society would be. (For a textbook example of ethnic/religious pride taken to its logical conclusions, see under "Middle East," subsection, "Iraq.") Therefore, part of me—the major part—can't help but believe that this ongoing emphasis on race and ethnicity is also counterproductive, especially when it takes the form of a nonstop effort by minority agitators and their media accomplices to issue status reports in real time, keeping the milestones and remembrances forever in the public eye. When I heard a commentator describe the Mets' Willie Randolph as baseball's "fourth African-American manager," I sighed one of my wearier sighs of recent vintage. When do we stop keeping score? Moreover, at a certain point, isn't it the score-keeping itself that presents us from becoming truly colorblind?

For similar reasons, I've long argued that some people's obsession with keeping the Holocaust front-and-center in our collective consciousness is not only unnecessary but exceedingly divisive.** Covering it as a part of history is one thing, but I don't see why we need to fill impressionable young minds with the horrors of the Holocaust in order to raise adults who respect the rights of others and cannot even conceive of genocide as a "solution" to anything. And when Jewish parents feel compelled to do this to their innocent children, it's a sin comparable to that of raising kids to be terrified of strangers—a totally irrational act. (Relevant digression: Statistics clearly show that children have little to fear from strangers, who account for just 3 percent of sexual assaults on children. On the contrary, it is primarily the people children love and trust—their parents and siblings, or the boyfriends of single moms—who do the unspeakable to them. For all intents and purposes, in strict probability terms, childhood abductions by total strangers do not happen.* And they never did, even before today's climate of paranoia caused parents to bring up their kids under the effective equivalent of house arrest. Maybe schools should therefore teach kids to be terrified of their parents and siblings.) Though I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, it strikes me that one of the most damaging things you can do is send a child out into the world expecting to be hated and/or abused.

And yet...and yet....

I realize that my wish for a world where the "isms" play no role—where people aren't even cognizant of race or ethnicity (or age or gender)—is probably naive. In any case, clearly we're not there yet. Which is why, on a day like today, I also think things like this: Until 60 years ago in this country—that's my own generation we're talking about—blacks were not allowed to participate in the sport we like to romanticize as "the national pastime." I find that unimaginable. I literally don't understand how it could've happened. But then, I literally don't understand how slavery could've happened. Or how the Holocaust could've happened. Or why people would beat some poor gay kid senseless, then tie him to a fence and leave him to die.

* Not quite the impression you get from CNN, is it? TV news would lead you to believe that just about every child who goes to the park gets abducted by some registered sex offender who slipped through the cracks and is now living in your neighborhood.
** Rebuttal: "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Really? Where's the proof for this? (It's another one of those assumptions, as noted in SHAM, that are universally accepted without being questioned/challenged.) Quite the contrary, I think it's those who remember the past who are far more likely to repeat it, albeit perhaps in altered form. An eye for an eye, and all that.

OK, one more last word on The Secret.

As appearing in today's American Spectator.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Graig. I miss our catches.

It's hard out there for a bunch of PC hypocrites.

I JUST HAD A THOUGHT that actually got me laughing aloud. And it hasn't been a laughing-aloud kind of day, so that's saying something.

Remember the 2005 Academy Awards? Hosted by The Daily Show's Jon Stewart? The Oscar-winning song that year was from the film Hustle & Flow. (It was performed live, as I recall, by rappers Three 6 Mafia.) The title of the song, in case memory escapes you, was as follows:

"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp."

Again, this is an Oscar-winning song. A putative symbol of America's best and brightest. An example to young entertainers everywhere who seek to make their marks in Hollywood as well as in the broader culture itself. That's amusing enough as it is, in light of this whole Imus imbroglio. Maybe not quite laugh-aloud funny, though. So I give you, now, the lyrics, which I'm linking rather than simply reproducing because (a) they're copyrighted, and (b) they add new meaning to the word vile.

But it's Don Imus who's putting out the bad vibe and insulting black women everywhere!

Ha ha, ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

Seeking innocent victims of second-hand self-help.

Early this week, a SHAMblog newbie, first-name Louis*, emailed me his account of the dissolution of his 20-year marriage and his overall descent into living nightmare. He attributes his personal tragedy to his (then) wife's progressive absorption in various self-help programs, goals, and themes. In vivid and harrowing detail, he writes of watching in dismay, and ultimately horror, as the behavior of the woman he once loved cycled from confusing to deceitful to thoroughly bizarre to—by the time divorce became inevitable—downright menacing.

Louis wasn't sharing all this just to "vent." He was building to a point. "Even in SHAM," he writes, observantly, "there's not much about the effects New Age beliefs have on the believer's periphery. The focus is always on the believer—how they may not seek medical help, etc.—not on the husband, wife, or kids, who don't know what's going on and whose trust is being abused." And he's right: One of my greatest misgivings about my book's oversights (there were many) was its way-too-sketchy coverage of such collateral damage. It occurs to me that this blog may be a way of addressing that oversight.

So... I hate to sound like the opening of some cheesy ad for a personal-injury lawyer, but if you or someone you know is an innocent victim of self-help—if your husband or wife or parents or children or siblings or coworkers have committed to some book or program or guru that has made your life hell—I'd like to hear from you.

Please contact me OFF-BLOG at steve@journalismpro.com.

A few caveats. You need to know upfront that I'm not sure, right now, what I'll do with this material. I may create a recurring feature that highlights "one person's story." I may create a whole new section of the blog. Or an entirely new blog. (Doubtful, but you never know.) I may even use it in the course of other writing pursuits, some of which may be commercial in nature (a new book, major magazine piece, etc.) I'll have a better idea once this campaign gets off the ground, assuming it does.

Also keep in mind that this is tricky terrain because of the high potential for what some may view as defamation, libel or, at minimum, invasion of privacy. We'll need to balance my natural desire to provide full disclosure (and call a spade a spade) against the legal rights of the folks our contributors complain about. If you wish to remain anonymous, please mention that during your initial contact. Otherwise I'll assume that any stories I receive are meant for publication, online or anywhere else.

Anyway, you get the idea. If you have a story to share, get in touch. And by all means share this post with others for whom you think it's right. My gut tells me there are a lot of Louises out there.

* Though Louis is his true name, and he's willing to go public under his full name, I'm keeping things anonymous for now, in part for the reasons described above. There are (at least) two sides to every story; people who contribute must do so with the understanding that I reserve the right to undertake some firsthand investigation to verify the salient facts and/or give the other party or parties a chance to have their say. This means that, while you can choose to be anonymous on the blog, you cannot be anonymous to me. I'll need at least your full name and phone number, for starters.

Calling all nappy-headed niggas in the projects.

The above words did not burble forth from the loose lips of the embattled Don Imus, nor are they mine (with the exception of "calling all"). They are, in fact, a line of lyrics from a song by the rap group Outkast, known for its explicit, racially charged, blatantly misogynist takes on American society. What makes such poesy both timely and interesting for our purposes is that a few short years ago, Outkast was one of the marquee rap groups courted by Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton when the twosome was plotting strategy for the latter's presidential run; they hoped that such prominent rappers could marshal the "hip hop vote," thereby taking Rev. Al over the top. Nor was this the first or last time Sharpton cheerfully rubbed elbows with key figures in Rap Nation, the worst offenders in today's society when it comes to dehumanizing black women (and blacks overall) while also instigating a war against cops, the social order, and civilized thought itself. Shameless confession of a guilty pleasure: From a purely musical standpoint I happen to enjoy listening to rap. But I don't think there's any doubt that rap music collectively has done far more damage to the psyche of young blacks of both genders than a hundred Don Imuses ever could. (Check out these lyrics as well...but be warned.)

Today, of course, that same Al Sharpton is in the vanguard of black leaders and other heated voices calling for the head of a push-the-envelope radio host who, in a single, unusually lame-brained moment (even for him), said something stupid and offensive (though far less stupid and offensive than what one hears in rap music, or in urban-themed films, or from most black comics except Bill Cosby, in any given moment during any given day). Go figure.

Meanwhile, what happened to free speech? It's true that people generally tend to misunderstand Constitutional protections of speech, which are meant primarily to protect people from the wrath of government. In Fortune-500 America, for example, there are no guarantees of free speech (without consequences, that is): Quite clearly you can be fired for voicing opinions that your corporate higher-ups do not like. That said, there is little doubt that the Framers built free speech into America's nascent democracy specifically to protect words in the arena of public discourse that other people find offensive, outrageous, and hurtful. (Please show me in the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights where it says you have "the right not to be insulted or have your feelings hurt.") In what many see as a particular reaction to the latter-day strictures of the Patriot Act, many courts have taken a more laissez-faire position on speech, even when it advocates, or implies the advocacy of, actual violence.

What's the point of extolling "free speech" if we're going to demand the firing of everyone who says something we don't like? Fact is, we probably need the loose canons. We probably need folks like Imus, and Howard Stern, and Dave Chappelle, and George Carlin, and Bill Maher, and Chris Rock. We need them to "keep it real" for us, to remind us that sometimes we take things a bit too seriously; that free speech was intended first and foremost to safeguard the very kinds of ideas that hurt people's feelings or, yes, make people furious. Just let capitalism do its efficient job; if you've got a gripe with Imus, then just let people stop buying the products advertised on Imus' show, or let the ratings drop to zero. That's ultimately how we punish speech we dislike in a free-market society.

Besides, if you were going to call for a head—would you really want that head to be Don Imus'?

How to win, while also losing.

While I was away, someone (who asked to remain anonymous) sent me, off-blog, a lengthy critique of my attack on Patrick Cohn's private-label brand of Sportsthink. And as I framed my reply to this writer, I was suddenly struck by the degree to which Cohn encapsulates just about everything that's wrong with the movement's latter-day attempts to build a harmonious melody out of its array of dissonant themes. After all, the pure Victimization of the I'm OK, You're OK period by now has fallen out of favor except among certain fringe groups.* But the unabridged Empowerment of The Secret is too hokey, too "out there" for some folks' tastes**. This leaves today's more thoughtful SHAMsters scrambling to find a middle ground: a life plan that reconciles all of SHAM's disparate arguments into a coherent whole. Unfortunately, as we saw in Cohn's case, no matter the amount of effort or seductive language, the end results are the same:

Intellectual discord. Practical cacophony.

Consider what Cohn and his think-alikes are, in effect, saying: Try hard...but not too hard. Sure, you absolutely need the will to win...but you can't be so single-mindedly focused on winning that you're unable to rebound after a loss. Be a leader...but also know when to follow. And so forth. (Here's one of my all-time favorites, actually spoken by a motivator retained by my 1970s sales firm to enlighten us in the ways of high-level thinking: "Fly high, but keep your feet on the ground.")

Look, I know what these exhortations are trying to communicate, and they're basically nice thoughts. They probably represent the closest thing to an overall "mental game" that I myself would endorse, were I to gravitate to the dark side and begin writing books with a distinct how-to component (as my agent has long suggested, so that we both can begin making some real money). Trouble is, they're thoughts that defy quantification or formalization. Any such temperate, middle-ground system would have to express itself in terms of so many complex algorithms and sliding scales and if-then conditionals that said system (1) would be inaccessible, if not altogether inscrutable, to most humans, and (2) would have to be individually written for every conceivable scenario that might arise in any individual's life. And even then, there'd be variables that can't be accounted for in black and white (e.g. changing moods, or the different approaches we make to different people based on their personalities or our respective places in the pecking order, etc.). This isn't like assembling a doll house or adjusting the ignition timing on a '74 Camaro. It can't be "taught." At least, not in any way that's guaranteed to have personal validity and/or efficacy for each individual user.

Any guru who "tells you different" is misleading you in order to take your money.

* notably political demagogues.
** though not too many folks, apparently, given its perch at the top of just about every best-seller list these days.

To those who assumed Rhonda Byrne finally had me whacked...

Apologies to Cal, Connie, RevRon, Matt, the anonymous contributor who left that intriguing discourse about rhetoric and philosophy, and all others who posted (or attempted to post) such insightful comments to SHAMblog over the past several days.

No doubt by now you've noticed that (a) said comments seemed to disappear into the ethers (in fact, they did not get published till just moments ago as I write this), and (b) you did not receive any feedback from me—which is by no means to imply that feedback from me is the manna of your intellectual lives. I'm just saying that usually, as my workload permits, I try to find time to comment (semi-)intelligently on what our various contributors are saying. In this case, I had an opportunity to get out of town on short notice, so I took it. Simple as that.

Thanks again to everyone who deems this blog worthy of reading and, especially, responding to. This next week looms as ultra-busy for your host, but I hope you'll keep the faith.

(Speaking of having people whacked, enjoy The Sopranos.)