Aaaaaaaaaarrggggghhhh!

This is a feeling I sometimes get when trying to solve a problem and trying a hundred iterations where nothing clicks into place, only to find that there is an easy solution that is so mundane, it makes me feel like I have the brain capacity of a tree leaf. Do others feel this way?

Turns out, there’s a scientific explanation for these mental hurdles we sometimes face. Neuroplasticity — the brain’s ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections — doesn’t vanish after our twenties. Even in our 40s and beyond, our brains remain remarkably adaptable. So while solving problems might sometimes feel like navigating a maze in the dark, our brains are still capable of lighting the way with new pathways.

The good news is that we can actively enhance our neuroplasticity. By engaging in challenging mental activities, learning new skills, or even taking up a musical instrument, we can strengthen those neural connections. Every time we wrestle with a tough problem, we’re not just banging our heads against the wall — we’re giving our brains a much-needed workout. With persistence and the right approach, overcoming mental roadblocks becomes not just possible but probable.

Take Jane, who at 45 decided to learn Spanish. At first, conjugating verbs felt like untangling Christmas lights in the dark. But with persistence, those confusing words started to roll off her tongue. Or consider Mike, who picked up chess in his 50s. Initially, he couldn’t tell a rook from a bishop, but now he’s giving seasoned players a run for their money. These everyday stories show that our brains are more than capable of mastering new challenges, no matter our age. So next time you’re feeling like a tree leaf in the brain department, remember — you’re in good company, and your brain is ready to grow.

To actively boost your brain function, consider incorporating activities that challenge both your mind and body. Regular physical exercise increases blood flow to the brain and promotes the growth of new neural connections. Engaging in mental workouts — like puzzles, reading, or learning a new hobby — stimulates different brain areas and keeps your mind sharp. Mindfulness practices such as meditation can improve focus and reduce stress, benefiting cognitive function. Even simple changes like taking a different route to work or trying to write with your non-dominant hand can nudge your brain out of its comfort zone. By integrating these techniques into your daily life, you’re actively strengthening your brain’s ability to adapt and learn.

Embracing the concept of neuroplasticity gives us a powerful tool to overcome mental roadblocks at any age. Instead of viewing challenges as insurmountable obstacles, we can see them as opportunities for growth and brain development. So the next time you feel that surge of frustration — your own “Aaaaaaaaaarrggggghhhh!” moment — remember that your brain is more flexible than you might think. With a bit of effort and the right strategies, you can turn that exasperation into a triumphant “Aha!”

Among the many tried and tested tropes we consistently see used in the media (including, unfortunately, news media), almost none work better than ones that induce a feeling of grief. We as humans like to feel sadness once in a while. It acts as a catharsis and balances our emotional well being. It helps us experience joy more strongly. However, we do prefer to feel sadness in a safe, low-stakes environment, and nothing offers that better than a movie or a tv show. It is a controlled environment which lets us get invested in the story and characters enough for the emotions to feel real, but with the safety net of being able to just step away if it ever gets too real.

One of these grief tropes that I recently remembered, and something that is definitely one that affects me the most, sometimes goes like this. The protagonist is involved in a high-stakes, dangerous exploit, something that can be life-threatening to her loved ones. She gets in over her head, and either as a reaction to a near-fatal attack on a family member, or as a necessary precaution (if she has been portrayed as an effective planner), she decides to wipe all their memories of her, so they can be safe. There is usually a scene to close this plot point, where the protagonist observes from afar that their loved one is safe in their ignorance, while she presents an expression of mixed sadness and relief.

Another series of events that invoke similar emotions, can sometimes go this way. Both the characters involved are protagonists of the story. However, there is an incident with memory loss, where one person forgets the other entirely. Or a crueler twist on that, which I once saw way back, where a character has a memory incident, falls in love with another character in their new identity, only to suffer short-term amnesia of this new life, go back to their old life, and forget about the other person.

In each of these versions of this trope, the grief comes from vicarious feelings of one-sided love, made worse by tenfold because of either an intentional hard choice, or complete lack of control. There is an additional hopelessness added to the grief because the other person doesn’t even know about this love, and there is little to no chance of that ever changing.

Let the tears keep flowing.

Religion, nationalism, soccer, college, book clubs — what does this seemingly random grouping of things have in common? They all work on the principles of belonging. That feeling of being a part of something bigger than yourself, that at some point in our lives, most of us end up chasing, whether we want to or not, whether we are even aware of it or not. It is the feeling we look for, sometimes for security, other times for purpose. It has the power to find a way for someone who feels lost, or override rational thought with mob mentality. It can give one find strength when they feel too weak to take on a challenge all by themselves, whether it is conquering the next test, or the next nation. And while there are so many positive, negative and fairly neutral implications of this very prevalent concept, my main interest comes in from two angles, one personal and the other, well, even more personal.

This one is about the more personal angle — politics. I hear about more and more examples every day (though this has probably been going on since the beginning of politics), how politicians campaign around unifying factors amongst their voter base. Some try to “unify” their voters under the love of a particular religion, while others try to invoke the passion of voters under the unified hatred of a people. Politicians campaign in small towns where a group of struggling farmers are looking for someone to blame, and in big cities where post-achievement professionals are just looking to align with a calling that gives their lives meaning. It doesn’t surprise me anymore when someone who used to chase money or achievement in their job, either achieved a lot, or got disillusioned, and turned to radical nationalism or religion (or both) to fill that void. It shocks me even less when a group of people, hard working and smart individuals, turn a blind eye when their governments commit atrocities against people within and outside their country, either hiding behind the curtain of economic development, or just retaliation for crimes committed by the other. And the absurdity of a country “electing” a criminal loon to the highest political office in the land doesn’t faze me as much anymore, with the prospect of an example of that happening a second time soon looming on the horizon.

The thing is, since i have eyes and a somewhat functional brain, this is not the first time i have noticed this. In fact, this is something i have been frustrated and enraged about enough times now, that my rants have become repetitive and grating to my dear loved ones. In all those occasions in the past though, i had been able to somewhat dissociate with it, generally by finding solace in the faults and stupidity of people falling prey to such tactics. The reason this resurfaced in my mind in a more balanced way recently was the other personal angle i mentioned previously, where in my own search for meaning, I came across my own need for belonging. In the absence of a predetermined setting of a workplace (as one may feel after graduation), i witnessed my own journey from being excited about this new found freedom and opportunity, yet after a few weeks of it, I noticed a certain small void. I only realized what it was when i decidedly felt excited about getting back to work, something that i had (and have) been dreading to some extent. Nothing had really changed about the job itself, but the lack of belonging to a group full of preordained meaning triggered this absurdly horrifying thought in my mind of actually looking forward to being back at work. This is when i decided that i had finally cracked, but more importantly, it suddenly provided me with a strong dose of empathy towards the people who vote for dangerous idiots who would destroy the global climate as long as they provide jobs to people.

I don’t really have a conclusion to this, except that I’m definitely not as smart as i thought i was, and all my hubris came crashing down like a house of cards. Or that while i do empathize with people more in situations like this, i think we used to be more skeptical as a people even when faced with the politics of pandering, yet something has changed. The fear of being left alone in a significantly more complex and dangerous world can be a strong driving factor. The anxiety of falling behind the group in a rapidly evolving world with increased focus on diversity can feel like a threat to many. In the presence of a cacophony of opinions like mine inundating most individuals on an hourly basis, doesn’t it just feel easier to just align with one group or one side and follow blindly, instead of trying to make sense of it all.

We have talked a lot (probably not enough) about the politicization of the American education system, with conservatives trying to pander to scared parents to further their dreams of getting paid by conservative donors. We have had many conversations (not nearly enough) about far-right politicians using libraries and schools as their campaign grounds, looking to whitewash American history and spread bigotry from elementary school onwards. We have seen Florida’s esteemed Governor use children as his springboard to the 2024 Presidential race, and allegedly not care whether the children are shot in schools as long as they don’t believe in slavery.

On January 2nd 2024, ripe and early in the new year, there was another high-profile victim to the new conservative war on education sanity, and a continuation of their war against people of color. Claudine Gay, the first Black person and the second woman to lead Harvard. She stepped down amidst calls for her resignation on grounds of some non-answers she gave when asked what appeared to be yes/no questions about appropriate action against alleged anti-semitism on campus, and made up allegations about plagiarism in her work. The campaign against her was promoted by conservative activists, including many that oppose diversity and inclusion. It comes as no surprise that these “activists” came up with the age-old arguments against affirmative action, which do not even apply in this case, implying that Claudine Gay’s appointment was a result of the color of her skin and not her immense qualifications. It also isn’t shocking that the unfounded plagiarism allegations surfaced in a conservation online journal.

This whole episode is just another example of typical far-right tactics, reminiscent of anti-Obama propaganda, of harassing anybody they see as a threat to their bigoted lifestyles, by republicans employing an insanely over-simplistic line of questioning around complex topics, and conservative media spreading rumors. It also leads to the typical unfortunate result of a person, who just wants to improve the education system for children, to be driven to the point where they just give in to the stress and step out of the limelight. The conservative dreams were realized when, even with the staunch support of her colleagues, Claudine Gay resigned as president of Harvard.

We have probably heard this phrase many times, in shows spanning decades of television and movie history. Growing up, when i heard a “clearly” guilty defendant utter these words in a favorite episode of “take-your-pick” legal drama, my first thought would be — oh now everyone knows he is guilty, because only guilty people would say that. If they had nothing to hide, wouldn’t they just tell the truth? This idea was practically beaten into my brain by the endless tirade of Law and Order’s many seasons, portraying the tireless, misunderstood cops and prosecutors just trying to do the right thing, occasionally by actually beating up a suspect until they coughed up (literally) a confession of guilt. Many of us have internally cheered when the underpaid cop gets that breakthrough for justice.

So it was no wonder that it came as a surprise when i discovered that the Fifth amendment is actually an inalienable right embedded in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. And that like the right to free speech and against cruel and unusual punishment (and sure, the “right” to bear AR-15s in a metropolitan area where there are probably no coyotes attacking people), this is not in fact a loophole to be used by a criminal to avoid jail-time, but a basic right and dignity afforded to us to protect against injustice. This provision protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves, whether it be in court, or during a police interrogation. Moreover, the idea that a police detective can compel someone to do this kind of self harm by, say, lying or threatening their loved ones, is akin to a politician holding my family hostage to prevent me from speaking ill of them. Now while this may happen openly in some parts of the world, the US Constitution explicitly prohibits this. In fact, if anything, the whole idea of getting a confession is a loophole that law enforcement has found to circumvent this basic right.

And even more surprisingly (to me, at least), that is not even the full scope of the Fifth Amendment. While the right to be protected from self-incrimination may be the most well-known, this amendment has four other clauses. The Grand Jury Clause requires a grand jury to formally indict a person accused of a serious federal crime before they can be brought to trial. It serves as a check on prosecutorial power. The Double Jeopardy Clause (another famous one, but i had no idea it fell under the Fifth’s umbrella) protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense in federal court, preventing multiple punishments for the same crime. The Due Process Clause ensures fair legal procedures before a person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. It incorporates both procedural due process (fair processes) and substantive due process (protection of fundamental rights) and prohibits vague laws. Finally, the Takings Clause allows the government to take private property for public use, provided that just compensation is given. While many of these clauses in the original Fifth Amendment were intended to be applied only at the federal level, these protections have been expanded and interpreted through numerous court cases, notably incorporating most of the protections to the state and local levels through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

That was quite a data dump, wasn’t it? Let me just ask this: in a country where, when a journalist sneezes the wrong way in the direction of a powerful businessperson, they get threatened with First Amendment lawsuits; or when a California senator dreams about background checks for semi-automatic rifles, screams of defiance are heard through QAnon and from Mitch McConnell’s bedroom; why is it that many of us still cheer when the grumpy cop and the tireless prosecutor come up with a series of tricks and threats to get a suspect to confess to a crime they may not have committed because they were in fact too busy trying to work two jobs and feed their children, and instead not pointlessly scream at our TVs about this gross violation of their fundamental rights?

Is it weird that I feel guilty of having a disease? Where does it come from? Why is it that when I heard about the test result, my first thought was my kid, and how I had failed him? This wasn’t new. I had been in this place before, and maybe was more shocked then. But this time I was so sure I was on the right path that it hit differently. When I saw that my A1C had climbed to an all-time high, despite the fact that I had been exercising more and generally feeling better about myself, I felt a sense of loss of control. The first time around, i had felt that i had things i could do to improve it, which i did. This time though, i thought i was already doing those things, so i felt that whatever i do won’t be enough. Or that it just gets worse through age.

But the part that confuses me the most, is that i feel guilty about it. I think it has something to do with the stigma around diabetes. There is a very real chatter around the topic of diabetes, about eating less sugar. The idea being that you would be fine if only you can control your sugar and general glucose intake, and you can keep your weight low enough. The ridiculous part is that in many cases Diabetes is genetic, so you are starting from a disadvantage. And while you can definitely control it by keeping a check on those things above, the stigma creates a sort of anxiety around messing up. For example, if you only exercise twice a week instead of 3–4 times, you feel that you are being lazy. If you eat some baked goods for a few weeks that you usually would, you feel that you lack self-control. And even if you are someone who is within a good range of weight, even if you gain 3–4 more pounds, you get this negative feeling from it, like you slipped up somewhere, probably from a combination of the other things. The overall implication is that you almost always feel under pressure to not let go, to keep control, to be constantly vigilant, and to chastise yourself if you see any of the metrics go in the wrong direction.

All these feelings eventually lead to guilt. That you have let down your people somehow. That only if you had more self control or more motivation, you would be able to not have this disease. That somehow, you don’t have a disease that you can fight, but that you are the disease. The guilt can eat at your soul, making you crave more of the things you shouldn’t have, or reduce your motivation to do the things that help. You can get trapped in this vicious cycle of disease, guilt and anxiety. In the end, there are a few ways to help you out of this cycle, but the most important one is support and help from your loved ones. It may be hard to bring them in, or keep them in the loop, given that part of your guilt revolves around letting them down, and you may feel that involving them deeper into this is doing them further a disservice. But trust me as i speak from experience, that your friends and family are the ones that will be your anchor as you fight this disease and come out on top of it. Trust that they love you that they want to see you healthy, and trust that your getting healthy with their support is helping them in the long-term.

The US Supreme Court, one of the few highly esteemed institutions of our democracy, and takers of one too many group photos that can only be described as a resounding hit at the local elderly living home’s adult bingo night. (RIP RBG, our lost savior). Between photoshoots, the highest court of the land sometimes hears numerous appeals, disputes and the odd supervillain monologues. These could be cases that have them take a hard look at whether a decision from a lower court was constitutional, or if someone appeals that a new law is unconstitutional, or in very special cases, whether the neighbor’s tree blocks my view of the beautiful parking lot and if i can take a chainsaw to it (one of these is not true, and you would not be surprised which one that is). In summary, the court’s responsibility is to review the constitutionality and interpretation of laws when a case is brought in front of them, and most importantly, set long-lasting precedent on how similar cases are handled in the future by lower courts.

I hope my understatement of an explanation sheds some light on the magnitude of responsibility shared by this body, and the danger it presents given the fragility of its makeup, and consequently, its political biases. You see, Supreme Court justices, however godlike their group photos are, are still human. And humans can’t help but delve into the politics of their times. Especially humans surrounded by hard-bound texts that serve as their photographic backgrounds, and the very political nature of many cases they preside over. More importantly, our legislative bodies (Congress, Senate and similar state-level institutions) usually have hundreds of representatives, each with their own minds (however much Mitch McConnell tries to create the hive mind). While this may allow for extreme delays in passing laws (if any), they have limited terms and need to vie for reelection by the general public every so often. The 9 lifetime-appointed (RIP, RBG, our last hope) Supreme Court justices, however, are nominated by the sitting president usually affiliated with a political party, and confirmed by an increasingly partisan (read, extreme partisan post-2008) senate. So, effectively, a democratic president could nominate a 45 year old far-left leaning bleeding heart liberal judge to the Supreme Court, who can be easily confirmed by a democrat-majority Senate (despite great arguments from the conservatives about how this justice has an absurd voting record in favor of the people and not of the corporations that run the country), and then has some 30+ years letting gay people get married. Or worse, vice-versa.

All of these scenarios come together to a junction where it is ridiculously easy for a far-right leaning Supreme Court to set precedents and overturn laws that affect millions of people, based on their personal interpretations of the constitution and laws tainted by their political beliefs and sales pitches. This nightmare of an architecture is perhaps best exemplified by these decisions that the highest court has made since the early 1900s, or as I like to call them, pre-pre-pre-pandemic(s) era. The 8–1 decision of the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell case by a 7–2 republican majority court, which upheld the forced sterilization of persons deemed to be « feeble-minded » set precedent for various states to pass similar laws and lead to eugenic sterilization of tens of thousands of US citizens. Another example: The Bush v. Gore ruling of 2000 literally helped elect a conservative president who did not get majority votes by the American public, where the then candidate Bush’s campaign just waited out until the SC justices ruled there just wasn’t enough time to finish the recount. That’s the kind of reasoning one would use for not finishing the report because they got too wasted at their coworkers going away party and couldn’t make the « safe harbor » deadline for their constitutional right to sleep with their shoes on. This « meh », let whoever be president because we don’t have enough time for democracy attitude had far reaching consequences, like the war in Iraq, and NCLB (more on that in a different article). Or Bowers v. Hardwick case of 1986 that upheld a law criminalizing gay and lesbian sexual activity, later viewed as an overreach into private life and personal liberties.

While these above examples are awful enough and clearly depict the conservative justices’ political ideologies spilling into and tainting their decision making, the next 2 cases are the cherry made of shit on the shit-cake that is judicial activism. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case of 2010 concerning campaign finance laws and corporate political spending dramatically changed the landscape of American political campaigns, where the conservative majority led by Justice Kennedy hid behind the trusted First Amendment shield (which in my mind looks very much like Captain America’s shield) and led to the rise of Super PACs and a significant increase in independent political spending. This may seem less impactful than basically electing a president through a court decision, but that only affected one election. The Citizens United ruling essentially made it extremely easy for corporations and wealthy individuals to influence elections through shadowy SuperPACs without having to disclose their involvement. In other words, this ruling made our democracy much less transparent and a much better fit in the waistcoats of individuals like the Koch brothers.

But none of these come close to the recent conservative train-wreck of overturning Roe v. Wade. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights protections. This reversal meant that the right of women to seek abortions, which had been recognized under the U.S. Constitution since 1973, was no longer protected at the federal level. As a result of this decision, individual states were given the authority to ban outright or severely limit access to abortion. This immediately set into action trigger laws in 14 states to effectively ban abortion, and many other states followed suit quickly, to the point where it has now become extremely difficult, if not impossible, for women to preserve their agency, or life, in any pregnancy.

From these examples, it becomes abundantly clear not only the havoc on millions of lives that a conservative leaning Supreme Court can cause, but also how easy it is to have a corporations-favoring, anti-regulation, and frankly, not a very photogenic supreme court, for indeterminate periods of time. All it takes is for one left-leaning judge to pass away (RIP, RBG, our lost soul), and her place be quickly filled in by an ultra-conservative 48-year old originalist, nominated by a far-right loon of a president in an election year, and shoved through the process by a right-majority senate before the election results could be determined. After all, they didn’t want a repeat of the Merrick Garland debacle of 2016, perpetrated by the same general group of people. Election year nominations are bad, except when they favor the far-right majority. The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett gave the conservatives an almost unassailable 6–3 majority, which made it much easier to potentially make significant rulings on a range of issues, including abortion rights, healthcare, gun control, and more. This essentially led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade less than 2 years later.

This seems bleak, doesn’t it? After all, these are politics at the highest level where the influence of us mere mortals is somewhat limited. While there are a plethora of changes that can be made to introduce more fairness and balance in the Supreme Court, like term limits, appointment standardization, transparency, ethics reforms, beauty contests, etc, and have it truly represent this diverse nation, what can we really do here? Hey, we chose to live in the land of opportunity (or at least some of us did), and we inherited the good, bad and the worst of the worst that comes with it, but we also inherited the responsibility to do our best to improve on it. And for all its flaws, the constitution, and some very reasonable amendments and voting rights acts, gave us the right and responsibility to vote for the betterment of all. And that is the biggest AR-15 in our arsenal (thanks Second Amendment) to change things for the better by electing congress-people, senators and presidents that actually want to work for all people and not for their pockets and for special interest groups.