THE START OF A NEW YEAR, DECADE, PRESIDENCY, AND A NATION?
More Random Thoughts on These Trying Times
(Part 10/Month 10)
by Terrence Shulman
Another month (#10) in the history books. December 2020 is gone and January 2021 arrives.
The U.S. has had 20.5 million confirmed Covid cases (up 18 million from a month ago) and we’ve had over 350,000 deaths this year (up about 70,000 deaths from a month ago).
The U.S. presidential election is over–at least in the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans–as the election saw a record turnout of voters which led to these “final” number: Joseph Biden (306 electoral votes and 81,283.485 actual votes or 51.4%; Donald Trump (232 electoral votes and74,223,744 actual votes or
46.9%. In other words, Joe Biden has been elected the next president of the United States.
Trump has yet to formally concede (it’s not expected he ever will). More than fifty election fraud lawsuits have all been dismissed. Biden’s transition to the top post has eventually proceeded with inconsistent cooperation from the Trump administration.
And Trump pardons a veritable Who’s Who list of cronies and corrupt individuals who never copped to doing anything wrong. Undoubtedly, he’ll pardon his entire family and–why not?–himself before January 20th.
It’s anybody’s guess what will happen on Inauguration Day. It’s doubtful Trump will be present on the podium as Biden and Harris are sworn in. We can only hope there’s not riots.
On Tuesday January 5, 2021 two U.S. Senate run-offs in Georgia will decide the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.
On Wednesday January 6, 2021, Vice-President Mike Pence will preside over the ritual final (?) reading of the electoral votes before a selection of U.S. Senators and House Representatives. Twelve (12) Republican U.S. Senators have already announced that they will formally object to the process.
These 12 Senators might wish to turn their complaints against President Trump who–according to an hourlong tape recording released yesterday–tried to coerce Georgia Republican Secretary of State to change the Georgia presidential election votes from Biden’s favor to Trump’s favor.
You can’t make this up! And the eyes of the world are upon us: united we stand, divided we fall.
Meanwhile, we enter a 3-month cold and dark winter with a virus that still rages and–despite the recent release of three different vaccines–only 3 million people have been vaccinated (less than 1% of the population and far less than the 20 million the Trump administration promised).
The economy is still in low-gear and Q-Anon nuts multiply.
We need an individual and collective miracle and a lot of hard work as well.
We need an intervention and intercession to help at least half the politicians and half of our country return to some semblance of sanity, reality, and true patriotism–country over party. The cult of Trump and Q-Anon must end!
Here’s hoping this happens…. if it doesn’t, God help us all.
Happy New Year, indeed!
IS HOARDING DISORDER GENETIC?
Yes… and No.
by Recovery Village Editor Renee Deveney (November 4, 2020)
The Hoarding disorder is estimated to affect 4-14% of the U.S. population. Hoarding is characterized by the accumulation of possessions, the inability to discard items regardless of their value, compromised living space due to possessions and significant impairment and distress in personal, social and professional functioning. Hoarding presents a serious health problem to those who struggle with the disorder, their families and the communities they reside in.
Due to its widespread prevalence, many have wondered if hoarding is genetic or a learned behavior. Research is ongoing on this topic, but there have been substantial discoveries to confirm that compulsive hoarding is largely influenced by family, with both genetic and environmental factors at work.
Compulsive Hoarding and Heredity
Studies have shown that those with compulsive hoarding have at least one first-degree relative with hoarding problems, suggesting that hoarding is hereditary. In one study, over 50% of compulsive hoarders had a first-degree relative with similar hoarding problems. A large study based on twins found that genetic factors accounted for 50% of the variance in hoarding behavior, with environmental factors making up the other 50%.
While these results are interesting, they are not conclusive regarding whether compulsive hoarding is hereditary in the general population. It is important to keep in mind that the symptoms related to hoarding are not always a stand-alone problem, but are often associated with other health and psychiatric problems. For instance, rates of comorbidity with other mental health conditions are high with compulsive hoarding.
Hoarding is seen alongside the following conditions:
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (20%)
- Depression and anxiety (24.4%)
- Social phobia_(23.5%)
- Acquisition-related impulse control problems (78.3%)
- Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (29.5%)
- Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (30%)
The link between compulsive hoarding and hereditary factors is high, though researchers agree that more studies need to be conducted in regard to the general population in determining the underlying factors in hoarding and whether genetic or other traits are responsible for this behavior.
Link to Chromosome 14 in Families With OCD
A team from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine led a study analyzing samples from nearly 1,000 patients from 219 different families with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Hoarding, often seen in those with OCD, received special attention in this study. Researchers were able to identify a unique region on chromosome 14 in families where two or more members shared hoarding behavior. What that pattern means and how exactly it relates to hoarding behavior is yet to be seen, but it certainly is significant in understanding hoarding and research.
The study of genetics and health disorders is not new. With psychiatric disorders being the leading cause of disability worldwide, the impact on individuals and society in general is high. The goal of understanding the origins of such disorders is at the top of the list for geneticists and researchers alike. The brain, however, is not so easily understood. This limits what researchers are able to do. Genetics provides the basis for understanding the possible hereditary links to mental health disorders and developing related treatments. The link found between chromosome 14 and hoarding is exciting news for researchers, clinicians and those with the disorder. It could help in the future development of treatment specific to hoarding.
Trauma & Other Risk Factors
In addition to genetic heritability, hoarding risk factors include significant environmental causes. Leading research indicates that one such environmental factor contributing to hoarding behavior is trauma. A stressful or traumatic event in life such as abuse or bereavement can trigger hoarding behavior as a coping mechanism. Other risk factors can include:
- Age: Hoarding is most common among middle-aged adults, though hoarding behavior usually manifests between the ages of 10 to 20
- Social isolation: Loneliness can lead to the tendency to collect items to fill the empty void in a person’s life
- Personality: Anxiety and indecision are common for those who exhibit hoarding behaviors
Major life changes have also been noted as factors related to hoarding, such as retirement, loss of a job, starting a job change or kids leaving home. While the causes of hoarding can vary identifying individual risk factors and environmental changes can help during treatment for hoarding.
Treatment for Hoarding Disorder
Compulsive hoarding can be treated, and positive results can be achieved especially when a person cooperates with the outlined treatment plan. Hoarding treatment usually involves medication along with counseling or therapy. With medication alone, hoarding symptoms were reduced by 28-70% in two study groups. Treatment of any co-occurring disorders, such as depression and anxiety, can help to reduce the severity of these conditions and facilitate healthy coping mechanisms.
Different forms of psychotherapy and education can have positive effects on how a person struggling with hoarding views their emotions and environment as it relates to their behavior. Common forms of hoarding disorder treatment may include:
- •Cognitive behavioral therapy: Helps an individual change negative emotions and thinking patterns as a way of reducing negative behavior
- Skills therapy: Helps an individual learn vital skills such as decision making and organization to better cope with the demands of daily life
Motivational interviewing: Provides motivation to encourage changes in hoarding behavior by making clear connections between an individual’s values and goals and how to change behavior that works against those goals - Support groups: Groups that meet on a regular basis made up of other people struggling with the same disorder; this shame-free environment is conducive to structured learning and is goal-oriented
Whatever method of treatment is advised, it is important to remember that self-motivation is a key aspect of success rates. If well-intentioned family members or friends forcefully clean out a house or get rid of possessions without the person’s permission, these actions almost always backfire. Trust can be lost and hoarding behavior will continue. Remember to respect the person and show a sympathetic attitude that encourages safety and well-being.
AWE’RE GOING TO LOSE GEORGIA IF WE DON’T LOCK UP
PEOPLE WHO SHOPLIFT BABY FORMULA
by Nathalie Graham The Stranger (December 8, 2020)
That’s the argument Seattle Council-member Alex Pedersen is using against a proposal to offer an affirmative defense for misdemeanors committed due to poverty and behavioral illness.
The Seattle City Council just held its first Public Safety and Human Services committee meeting on a
proposal to create an additional defense for people who commit misdemeanors because of poverty. The
defense would also apply to people who commit misdemeanors while experiencing behavioral health or
substance use disorder symptoms.
If codified in the Seattle Municipal Code, the defense would allow judges and juries to dismiss misdemeanor charges if a person committed the crime while trying to satisfy “a basic need.” The proposal was born out of the defund movement and was catalyzed by Decriminalize Seattle.
Today’s conversation on the proposal was mostly introductory and drenched in legalese. The Seattle City Attorney’s office and the King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) went back and forth about how broad the defense should be, and about whether the burden of proof should be placed on the defendant or the prosecutor.
While the technical legal conversation was a bit dry, the public comment was filled with fiery testimonies, and Council-member Alex Pedersen seemed determined to nip this shit in the bud. The council is in for a lot of debate as this proposal moves through the process toward becoming legislation.
Pedersen, who isn’t even officially on the committee but who filled in for Council-member Kshama Sawant as an alternate, expressed certainty that Seattle would become a national embarrassment if the council ultimately passes the proposal. If the courts give people caught shoplifting baby formula an opportunity to explain the circumstances around their crime instead of throwing them directly into jail, then the Democrats will lose the Senate races in Georgia, he basically argued.
Pedersen wants the council to slow down on modifications to the criminal legal system. Look at all the reforms we just passed for policing, Pedersen said, referencing cuts to the Seattle Police Department budget, investments in community policing, and the funding for the participatory budgeting process.
Groups for and against the proposal mobilized for public comment this morning, but the majority of the comments came from the opposition. Members of the business community called this a “piecemeal approach that leads to bad policy” and a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”
Tiffani McCoy, the lead organizer with Real Change, spoke in favor of the proposal. She said the “sweeping, emotionally-charged claims” from critics were “simply fear-mongering.”
Committee Chair Lisa Herbold, who sponsored the proposal, chastised Pedersen for spreading a “false narrative.” Herbold explained that the proposal the committee was discussing would not decriminalize certain crimes. In fact, it wouldn’t be much different from what the City Attorney’s office does currently, she said.
Pete Holmes, the City Attorney, said in a letter to the council that his office already directs prosecutors not to put people in jail for crimes of survival. The council’s policy, however, would codify those directives, which can change depending on who leads the City Attorney’s office.
The proposal creates an “affirmative defense” for crimes committed out of basic need. Affirmative defenses require defendants to admit they committed a crime but allow them to explain the circumstances of the crime. Then, the judge and jury decide whether or not to throw out the case based on what they hear. Courts already recognize affirmative defenses such as duress or the common law defense of necessity, where people commit crimes to avoid injury, death, or greater harm. Crimes committed out of poverty or mental health don’t really fit into those pre-existing categories.
“We want jurors to be able to hear the full story,” Anita Khandelwal, Director of King County Department of Public Defense, said about the council’s proposal. “When every member of our community has enough to eat and is sheltered from the elements we will applaud the irrelevance of this law and not need to use the defense at all.”
John Schochet, an attorney with the City Attorney’s office, disagreed. Should a poverty defense cover all types of misdemeanors? Schochet and the City Attorney think no. Khandelwal and the DPD think yes because a jury will ultimately determine whether a defense is valid. Should the defendant or the city have to prove that the defendant committed a crime because they were poor or experiencing mental health issues in these cases? Schochet said the defendant should. Khandelwal said the city should.
Pedersen was upset that the council was asking “how” to implement this policy and not “whether” to implement the policy. Councilmember Andrew Lewis said that council members shouldn’t “prejudge” a policy this early in the process.
Ultimately, nothing changed from the committee meeting today. More committee meetings on the policy will happen in January.