Hoarding Stuff

In my own way, I have become one who hoards things. It does not take up much space. You would hardly notice it. I hoard things on my computer. I have things on my computer that I started collecting since around 1992. Before then, I wrote out my studies, which would have started around 1980. Slow but sure, these old studies found their way into my computer. Had it not been for the computer, I would have a wall full of notebooks and files. As it is, what I hoard is now in a simple computer.

I came across a few reflections on Compulsive Hoarding Syndrome. My own theory about compulsive and/or addictive behavior is to choose something healthy about which to be compulsive or addictive.

In any case, Gordon Stewart, 74, was a retired cabinetmaker and ponytailed loner whom neighbors often saw pedaling his bike around the streets of Broughton, in the U.K., picking up cardboard boxes and bags full of rubbish. One day, when neighbors had not seen Stewart emerge from his home for several days, they called police. Officers broke in, only to find a house so full of trash that the only way to get around was through an elaborate series of tunnels running through the filth. The stench was so bad that authorities called a police dive team using breathing apparatus to search for Stewart, whom they found deep inside the home. Police believe the mountains of collected stuff disoriented Stewart and he died of dehydration. “Human mole dies of thirst … lost in his own tunnels of trash,” read the headline in The Sun.

Stewart suffered from Compulsive Hoarding Syndrome, a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder that causes people to acquire and hold on to stuff that is useless or of limited value — stuff most of us would call “junk.” Compulsive hoarders stubbornly hold on to old newspapers, magazines, old clothing, bags, books, mail, notes and lists, as well as other accumulated junk and even garbage, because they believe they might somehow need those items in the future. The homes of compulsive hoarders thus become a dumping ground, where piles and piles of stuff choke out living space to a dangerous point. It does not take long for the clutter to start spreading onto the floors, countertops, hallways, stairwells, garage and cars. Beds become so cluttered there is no room to sleep. Chairs become so buried there is nowhere to sit. Kitchen counters become so cluttered that food cannot be prepared. Eventually, like Stewart’s home, one can access the living space only by a series of narrow pathways or tunnels through the clutter. According to a survey by the Obsessive Compulsive Foundation (OCF), hoarding constituted a physical health threat in 81 percent of identified cases, including threat of fire hazard, falling, unsanitary conditions and inability to prepare food. Stewart’s case shows what can happen when hoarding reaches a critical stage.

            However, the accumulation of stuff is only a symptom for compulsive hoarders. According to the OCF, the root cause has to do with an acute case of perfectionism. Karron Madment, a behavioral scientist, writes:

“People with compulsive hoarding syndrome do not like to make mistakes. In order to prevent making a mistake, they will avoid or postpone making decisions. Even the smallest task, such as washing dishes or checking mail may take a long time because one has to do it ‘right.’ The net result of these high standards and the fear of making a mistake is that compulsive hoarders avoid doing many tasks because everything becomes tedious and overwhelming.”

            The OCF says an estimated 700,000 to 1.4 million Americans suffer from Compulsive Hoarding Syndrome. These people are often isolated, lonely and in need of help.

            However, while syndrome sufferers represent extreme cases, we might argue that much of culture focuses on the accumulation of stuff. Accumulation of stuff, in its proper place in our lives, is a healthy and good thing. It provides for your health, physical well-being, retirement, children, and so on. Yet, Jesus challenges us often to re-consider our relationship to stuff. No, it may not be “junk,” and it may not clutter our homes to the point of madness, but the constant drive to acquire bigger homes, cars, televisions, gadgets and other high-end stuff may be symptomatic of a larger and more pervasive human disease — call it greed or avarice, or maybe something such as “chronic wealth syndrome.” Whatever the name, it has the potential to be no less debilitating or even deadly to sufferers. When the overwhelming desire to accumulate and hold on to material things begins to dominate a person’s life, whether you lock yourself in an apartment or live in a palatial mansion, it is a serious problem to your soul and to your discipleship.

What Makes You Cry, Church

What is it that makes you cry?

When I am at a movie, and something in it makes my eyes water or get wet (no, I do not cry, I write with a smile), I often pay attention. Sometimes, it will be obvious, such as Marley and Me, a movie about a family who owns a dog through several years, and must eventually have it “put down.” Some are not so obvious.

Even for men, it is now okay to cry. Nevertheless, do the right things get us worked up?  

Jesus became sick to tears when people caused other people to stumble. Some of his harshest statements in the gospels are reserved for those people. 

This discussion comes with a warning label. You may not feel good. It might not build you up. In fact, Jesus uses exaggerated notions and actions to make his disciples face the gravity of what they have done.

By rebuking the unknown man who offered healing and exorcism in Jesus' name (Mark 9:38-50), the disciples had stopped up a tributary of divine compassion from flowing to those in need. In response, Jesus offers his disciples some of his harshest, most demanding judgments on what believers should do in order to avoid committing such sins. The Jesus of love and mercy now uses images of force and fury to illustrate how deep his emotions run on this subject. Those who willfully erect "stumbling blocks," whose actions hinder the progress of "little ones," are declared better off at the bottom of the sea. So great is Jesus' love for these "little ones" that he counsels the ancient mechanism of pars pro toto ("partial sacrifice for the sake of survival in a situation of pursuit, of threat and anxiety") to behavior that would lead others astray.  Jesus' greatest anger, his darkest emotions, his bitterest tears were reserved for those who took advantage of the "others," the "little ones" -- the poor, the weak, the young, the old, the sick, the outcast. Jesus did not try to curb his tongue when castigating those who took unfair advantage or practiced outright abuse against the "others" and "little ones" of the world. Neither was Jesus ashamed to let the fierceness of his feelings turn to tears of compassion and love for all the "others" and "little ones" who stumble and struggle in this world.

 Tears of justice, compassion, genuine heart-and-soul-break are rare today. Tears are not rare. Even men now are crying all over the screen.

When I was growing up, males learned that "Real men don't cry." Admonitions like "Get control of yourself," "Stop crying" helped wean the weeping out of us. Then we found out that because "Real men don't cry," men die earlier than women. A life-flood of tears is the lifeblood of health, joy and strength. 

What makes us cry, church?

Is our crying really nothing more than wanting what the world has, wanting what we used to have --the prestige, the preeminence, the power; wanting the perks that came from a time when church and culture at least seemed somewhat in sync?  Or is our crying based on the kinds of attitudes and activities that brought the sting of tears to Jesus' eyes?

"Jesus wept." These words have been a mystery through the ages. Jesus not only cried out a lot (Matthew 27:46, 50; Mark 15:34, 37; Luke 23:46). Jesus cried, literally.  An emotional Jesus -- breaking into a smile, bursting into tears of sorrow and chagrin -- is the Savior we serve. 

What really makes us cry, church? What makes you sad? What makes you glad? What makes you mad? 

Jesus cried when he looked out over Jerusalem and wept for a city that did not know what made for peace. The Triumphal Entry ended in tears because his own people could not recognize the Way, the Truth and the Life when it stared them in the face.

Jesus cried when he saw the havoc death wreaked on the life of his best friend's family. The Bible says he "was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved" from the pain of Lazarus' death and "began to weep" (John 11:33, 35).

So what really makes you cry? 

There is a verse in the Psalms: "You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your record?" (56:8) According to Dr. James Fleming, an archeologist, the bottle of tears refers to an ancient practice of collecting one's tears and preserving them in a tear bottle made of glass, many of which had a bulbous bottom and a long neck flared at the top to facilitate collecting the tears.  The chapel on the Mount of Olives known as Dominus Flevit, architecturally shaped like a tear bottle, is dedicated to Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. Some have even suggested that the woman who bathed Jesus' feet with her tears (Luke 7:38) was pouring out her bottle of tears. 

Let us reflect upon the image of the tear bottle.

If you had such a bottle, what would be the stories behind the tears in that bottle?

You may well have tears of rage, outrage, compassion, and concern.

Maybe you have become too cynical. You no longer cry. Maybe you never did. Maybe you need to do so.

How many tears are in your bottle?

Republican 2016 Debate Simi, California

The purpose of this blog is to allow the potential reader to ponder the field of Republican candidates. I have been collecting some thoughtful articles that I hope will prove helpful. I have stayed away from what I thought of as polemical arguments. The order of discussion of the candidates is the in order in which I have my preferences today. I like the diversity represented in the field of 17 candidates. The order reflects that appreciation. This field is diverse, and the "best" person will win, but I hope the best will also be Hispanic, Black, Indian, or female. I hope any potential reader will take a few moments to reflect. After the first debate, my impressions changed slightly with the middle group. However, my top preferences remained the same.

Arthur Brooks wrote a book that explores the moral case for conservatism, and Gabriella Hoffman summarizes the ideas.

Among the major issues in the Republican Party is the difference between people who might call themselves "movement" conservatives, like the TEA Party, Hannity, and Limbaugh, and the "Establishment" Republicans, such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Matt Lewis has offered an excellent analysis, using the quick change in the views that movement conservatives have of Paul Ryan and Donald Trump as examples.

Before I begin, a few authors have explored some general issues in the campaign. For example, Helen Raleigh explains why the Asian vote typically goes Democrat and how Republicans might change this. For another example, we can take the matter of Iraq and its continuing influence on the campaign. Steve Chapman explores the hesitancy of Republican candidates to deal with Iraq. If you look at the comments section, you should see one from me. Charles Krauthammer has his reaction to the question of a hypothetical here.

Of course, we have some analysis of the horse race. Charles Krauthammer offers a betting approach to both Republicans and Democrats, giving Marco and Hillary 3-1 odds, and Republicans a 55-45 advantage to win. Thomas Sowell considers the candidates as of August 2015.

Of course, the debate scheme is difficult. My puzzlement has been the focus upon national polls rather than the polls in IA and NH, where the candidates have naturally been spending their time.

I should add that at this stage, in addition to the articles to which I refer, much of what I have are impressions. I do not have the time, at this stage, to study the positions.

Marco Rubio
He presents his position on the issues on his web site. I like the idea of a Cuban-American becoming President, but my primary concern is the issues. After the Simi, California debate, which focused on foreign policy, I must say that he communicates the vision well. Even where I might disagree, I have respect.

Whenever I hear him speak, I am impressed. He has what some of us might call a conservative vision of what American can be. For me, this is primary. He seems willing to engage the battle. Nicholas Riccardi of the AP has provided a relatively balanced review of the Rubio tax plan. Star Parker shares her early sense that Rubio may have that Reagan touch. She also writes about how his understanding of "black lives matter" is on target.

The New York Times provided some levity. They must think he is dangerous from the perspective of their liberal bias. They ran stories that he had two driving violations in 20 years and that he had a "luxury speed boat." My understanding is that for many who live in Miami, the driving violation should earn him an award for best driver. You can find a picture of the boat. Ramesh Ponnuru digs into the supposed bad decisions regarding personal finances and thinks that he is like most Americans.

Carly Fiorino
She does not have an issues page, but you can "meet" her. She was a powerful force in the Simi, California debate. She was part of a private sector CIA team after 9/11/2001, and it showed.

When I hear her, I like what she says. She has persistence about her. I would be happy for her to be the first female President. She has integrated her faith journey into her presentation of herself in a powerful way.

She offered a speech on the rise of China in August 2015.

Debra J. Sanders discusses some of the things excite her about this candidate. However, the layoffs at Hewlitt-Packard and the failure to pay off campaign debt promptly are problems with her. Alex Smith discusses the contrast between this candidate and Hillary Clinton.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman explains why she crushed the debate - optimistic, knowledgeable, and articulating the difference between progressive and conservative. She compares her to - Margaret Thatcher!

Mona Charen offers her reasons for thinking that a Rubio/Fiorino or the reverse would be a winning ticket for Republicans, but wonders if America is willing to give a serious examination, given the fascination with Trump. In contrast, John Hawkins makes it clear that her experience at Hewlitt-Packard, her failure in her Senate campaign, and her past positions, do not commend her. Steve Chapman analyzes her time at H-P and her debate performance and draws a negative conclusion. Rich Lowry argues that feminists should fear Carly.

Ben Carson
He offers his position on issues on his web site. I like the way he weaves his faith story into his presentation of himself. Having a black president who is actually successful would be wonderful. However, I share the concern about his readiness. I wish he would have run for Senator, for example. He did nothing to help himself in the Simi, California debate. He needs to demonstrate knowledge on the enemies that confront the USA today. He did not have a breakthrough moment, and he needs one every debate.

Star Parker writes about the power of the personal story of this candidate. Joy Overbeck offers the same through the eyes of his mother. A blogger wanted to like him, but points to a blunder in Iowa to say that he is not ready for prime time. Justin Haskins also has a concern for his readiness for the presidency, but thinks the vice-presidency would be a possibility. Arthur Schaper has a similar concern, noting public utterances he has had to retract or for which he made apology. Rich Lowry writes positively of his non-political alternative to Trump. Michelle Malkin writes of his wife. Debra J. Saunders thinks he stills needs to show he has the executive experience necessary, but she has other positive things about him.

Some in the Press have taken things Carson has said and twisted them to mean something Carson would never say. As Carson has said, this is why many Americans do not trust the "mainstream" media represented by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, and Washington Post. This represents strong opposition, but when one adds much of Academia and much of Hollywood, it becomes imposing. Among the easiest things to do is twist words. Here are a few examples. Star Parker defends what Dr. Carson said about not promoting a Muslim for President and expecting any Muslim running for office needing to renounce Sharia Law. Wesley Pruden defends his statement as well. David Limbaugh defends what he said about the Oregon school shooting. Ron Fournier, an example of the lack of trustworthiness in listening to Carson, makes his objection to what Carson says about government and guns.

John Kasich
I have long liked him and followed his work in Congress as well as Governor. He would find ways to get things done and work across the aisle. However, right now, many Republicans do not seem interested in that. I like the way he has integrated his faith journey into his presentation of himself. His performance in the Simi, California debate was disappointing.

A Newsweek interview in the Jewish World Review offers some background. Margaret Carlson promotes this candidate on the basis of his record, but also points out that he is not pure enough for some conservatives. David Shribman says this is his moment. Albert Hunt likes John Kaisch, contrasting his Ohio popularity with the other unpopular governors on this list.

Chris Christie
I like his combative style. I like his willingness to tackle entitlements.

Jeb Bush
He offers news and positions on issues on his web site. I like much about him. I have not been a Bush fan, although I think they are wonderful people and desire to serve the nation they love. George H. W. gave us Bill Clinton, and George W. gave us Iraq and Barak Obama. It also simply looks like he does not really want the job. I saw this recently when Jeb, following Hillary as a speaker, listened to Hillary attack him, and he simply got up and gave his prepared speech. Byron York addresses this incident. In October 2015, he had a reaction to Donald Trump that makes Debra J. Saunders think he is not suitable for President.

Guy Benson writes about the relationship between Jeb and George W. William Kristol says that George W. was right on several matters.  Jonah Goldberg is surprised that a family with so much institutional knowledge of how to run for President seems to have so many mistakes at the beginning of this campaign. Erick Erickson discusses some of the problems he has. Debra Saunders has a positive reflection on the energy of Jeb Bush. Kathleen Parker discusses Alzheimer costs to the government and the plan of Jeb to deal with it.

Larry Kudlow thinks that he is right that the economy can grow at 4%. One author suggests that Jeb is more conservative than others think.

Jeb seemed to have a misstep in his response to a question from Megyn Kelly about whether what he knew now would he have done the same thing that George W. did in Iraq. David Harsanyi connects this interest with the vote by Hillary Clinton for the war.

Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site. Of course, his Hispanic background is attractive. He has said many things I like. He is an intelligent man. He can make a sound argument. I do not like the fact that when he has staked out a position in the Senate, only one or two others join him. He sounds too much like a preacher for me. Byron York, after Steve Deace of Iowa endorsed him, examines the increase in support for Cruz since the debate. George Will describes his election strategy of energizing conservatives to come to the polls, a strategy Obama perfected. My assessment is that such a strategy obviously can work of the messenger is right. Reagan had a similar strategy. I do not think Cruz is the right messenger.

Rand Paul
Not surprisingly, you can quickly access his stance on issues. His libertarian leaning is well-known, and I like it. His stance on the military is a little too far for me. I wish other Republican candidates shared some of his hesitancy to use military force.

Brian Darling explores the challenge he brings to the Republican Party, apparently thinking other Republicans favor a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy and are they do not tell the truth about the Bush/Obama NSA spying program. Of course, the way I have worded this, I disagree, but the article is worth reading. Stephen Moore helped put together his tax plan and offers an explanation that it is "flat and fair."

Bobby Jindal
He has a newsroom that discusses issues as they arise.

I have long liked this candidate. His parents were from India. He provides a fresh look for the Party. He also presents conservative ideas in a fresh and interesting way. My problem with him is that at critical moments, he seems to under-perform. His promise does not coincide with reality.

Stuart Rothenberg offers an initial assessment of why no one should underestimate him. Stephanie Grace discusses the low approval he has in Louisiana and the budget deficit. Arthur Schaper has an interesting article on why one should not count him out yet. Jeff Jacoby says that Jindal is particularly good at emphasizing the importance of being American, rather than a hyphenated American.

Jeff Crouere, after Jindal made personal comments against Trump, analyzed the eight years of Jindal as governor. It does not look good.



The rest are people that I hope and trust do not get the nomination. Here is my "Please No" list.

Mike Huckabee
Do not ask why. I think he seems like a fine person and good TV host, but President? No.

Steve Chapman thinks that since 2008 this candidate has done things to narrow his appeal rather than broaden it. George Will has concerns related to the way he understands God in politics. David French argues that a loss by this candidate will be a victory for cultural conservatives. Jonah Goldberg offers his analysis of the progressive nature of the Huckabee campaign. Todd Starnes thinks he is a man of conviction as he stands for traditional marriage and has concerns over what the Supreme Court will do regarding legalizing gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg does want to defend this candidate, but he did not compare Obama to Hitler.

Lindsay Graham
Daniel Doherty considers him a longshot candidate. Paul Greenberg does not think he has a chance, but he likes him, especially on national defense and on reform of entitlements.

Rick Santorum
George Will makes it clear that he thinks this candidate is silly for even considering a run for the presidency again. Agreed.

Jim Gilmore

George Pataki

Donald Trump
He will not be the nominee. Jeff Jacoby shares why, beginning with the idea that it says many good things about the Republican Party that most Republicans have a negative view of him. William Kristol is also against Trump, but pauses to listen to what attracts people to him. Joseph Curl thinks that he is actually a Democrat plant, given his donations to the Democrat Party. Jonah Goldberg says he is a bad deal for the Party. In raising the issue of illegal immigration. He just did OK in the Simi, California debate.

Of course, he has raised the matter of illegal immigration. Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration.  The Corner in the National Review offers a brief description of the immigration plan he offered in August 2015, which is largely the plan of Jeff Sessions. Ann Coulter explains why Trump is right concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Linda Chavez focuses on birthright citizenship and defends it. Michael Barone offers a discussion of the 14th amendment and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Mona Charen joins the ranks of this view of the 14th amendment. Charles Krauthammer takes on the immigration matter and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Michael Reagan thinks it time to take on Trump. George Will thinks the immigration plan could spell doom for the Republican Party. He also thinks that Trump will damage the Republican Party amidst minority voters and offers statistics to show why this is so dangerous. Helen Raleigh points to the Know-Nothing Party as a parallel, focusing on immigration.

Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore point out that the last protectionist president America had was Republican Herbert Hoover, and that did not go well. The trade policy of Trump seems headed down that path.

People puzzle over the attraction of Trump to so many likely Republican primary voters. I confess my puzzlement. Rush Limbaugh says that Trump has tapped into the mistrust that many in the Republican base feel toward the inside the beltway Republicans. In my reading of conservative literature, I would agree that many feel frustrated. Yet, as Republicans attempt to follow the constitution, where the President does not, there are limits to what they can do, even with majorities in both Houses. My further concern, that Rush does not share, is that Trump will damage conservative ideas by his attacks on on conservative and liberal ideas. He is charting his own course, and it is not the conservative ideas that Rush, Bill Buckley, George Will, and Ronald Reagan fought for. Here are some analyses.  Michael Reagan says that Trump is a fake conservative and a danger to the Republican Party. Alicia Colon, who apparently knows The Donald, thinks he would have been wonderful mayor of NYC, but not a President. Kathleen Parker says one should not dismiss Trump, and offers her reasons. David Limbaugh wonders if Trump will awaken the "sleeping giant." Angelo Codevilla has some very good comments about the rise of Trump.  After the Cleveland debate, George Will, whose wife works for the Scott Walker campaign, wrote that Trump is a counterfeit conservative. Will continues his probing in a September 2015 article.  S. E. Cupp describes the Trump voter as not part of the base conservative (who thinks of Jeb Bush as establishment, purist) but rather disaffected moderates and even some on the Left. She points to some voters who say that if Bernie Sanders does not make it through the primaries, they are going for Trump. Dana Milbank writes of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley talking back to Trump. Nate Silver says we should not compare Trump and Sanders, and offers his reasons.  Paul Greenberg refers to Trump as in the tradition of the ugly American, Pat Buchannan and the populist know-nothing party. Jeff Jacoby shows how Trump is in favor of expanding "eminent domain," something most conservatives would normally be against.

Proverbs on Words

The book of Proverbs on hurtful words (Bible version is the ESV):

 11:9 -- With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.

 12:18 -- There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

 12:22 -- Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

 15:1 -- A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

 15:4 -- A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit.

 16:24 -- Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.

 16:27 -- A worthless man plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire.

 17:9 -- Whoever covers an offense seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates close friends.

 18:21 -- Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.

 21:19 -- It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.

 21:23 -- Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

 25:18 -- A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a war club, or a sword, or a sharp arrow.

 26:21 -- As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife.

 26:28 -- A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.