Tiny House Obsession

I admit it: I'm obsessed with tiny houses. All sorts, no less, from Tumbleweed Tiny Houses to weeHouses. I want to live in one. I want to rid myself of STUFF.

Read this and tell me you don't want one.

Mary, Mary. Quite.

Mary, Mary. Quite.

The only real thing ...

“The only real thing to leave in the world is one's spirit ... the leavings of me, murking up the atmosphere, smogging the air, sprinkling a sort of mist over things so perhaps they will twinkle a bit.”

-- M.F.K. Fisher

Letter to the Editor

A few weeks ago, I read an opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun titled "'Parity'Through The Back Door" by Richard Vatz, of Towson University, and Jeffrey Schaler, of American University. It enraged me so much that I felt obligated to write a response in the form of a letter to the editor. Below is what I wrote:

After years of breakthroughs in the realm of understanding addiction and the treatment of it, it is appalling to see that a trained psychologists could be so easily dismissive and patently wrong about the nature of addiction and its treatment ("Parity through the back door," Oct. 23).

I worry that a reader of the Sun will see this editorial written by Robert Vatz, a professor of psychology, and Jeffrey Schaler, a psychologist, and take it as gospel. Addicts and those who treat them already must counter the misguided opinion that addiction is a choice. Far from being "behavioral choices," as Schaler and Vatz call them, addictions are the hijacking of personal choice. Mountains of evidence -- from Dr. James Milam's "the Alcoholism Revolution," to Dr. Robert DuPont's "The Selfish Brain: Learning from Addiction," to Milam's and Katherine Ketcham's "Under the Influence" and Ketcham's and William Asbury's "Beyond the Influence" to hundreds upon hundreds of other texts and studies -- confirm that addiction is a disease that requires treatment. As such, it warrants insurance coverage equal to that of physical conditions.

Furthermore, even if addiction begins with a person's own volition, it hardly means the treatment of addiction shouldn't receive health insurance coverage. Schaler and Vatz's example that illness such as cancer, heart disease of diabetes should receive insurance coverage because people cannot "will their onset" is silly. Should people not receive insurance coverage if they contract cancer through smoking, or have heart disease or diabetes because of a bad diet and lack of exercise?

Schaler and Vatz are also misguided when they identify stigma as a "marvelous negative reinforcer for undesired behavior." Stigma associated with addiction and mental illness creates shame, which can create a cycle in which an addict returns to their drug of choice or prevent a person from seeking treatment. Thousands upon thousands of Americans go without mental health treatment that could result in healthier, more productive lives for fear of being seen as weak. The further barrier of lack of insurance access need not be there.

Finally, that Mr. Schaler is employed by the university at which I am pursuing a graduate degree makes me embarrassed to attend American University. It is of note that it is not the Department of Psychology, but rather the School of Public Affairs that employs Mr. Schaler; I would hope that the psychology department is smart enough to realize the danger of his opinions.

I hope that if you are considering attending American University, particularly to major in anything within the School of Public Affairs, you seriously consider whether a department that would hire someone with such misguided views is right for you. If you do decide to attend American, I would ask that you refuse to take any classes offered by Prof. Schaler.