Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Has American Society Gone Insane?
By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet. Posted September 11, 2008.

America's mental health problems may be more than a matter of some "unadjusted" individuals. The entire culture might well need adjusting.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/97934/ (http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/97934/)

In The Sane Society (1955), Fromm wrote, "Yet many psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of 'unadjusted' individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself."

Is American society a healthy one, and are those having difficulties adjusting to it mentally ill? Or is American society an unhealthy one, and are many Americans with emotional difficulties simply alienated rather than ill? For Fromm, "An unhealthy society is one which creates mutual hostility (and) distrust, which transforms man into an instrument of use and exploitation for others, which deprives him of a sense of self, except inasmuch as he submits to others or becomes an automaton." Fromm viewed American society as an increasingly unhealthy one, in which people routinely experience painful alienation that fuels emotional and behavioral difficulties.

And Fromm was talking what, 40-50 years ago, and its not got much better.  Clearly, and a society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.  And that's just one topic.

I think the culture of consumerism and beauty and conformity would make anyone insane.  Society's expecations (good grades, college, good paying job, marriage, house, kids, dog) is a myth and a trap.

There is a lot of good, but the media tells us that unless we subscribe to the above and do it well we're failures.

Leaving the rat race and downsizing my life and living it against the grain has been truly freeing in every sense of the word.

Jay

R.D. Laing once said that madness is rational response to living in an insane world.  Might have been on to something there.

And beauty might be a society deal, but a good paying job is not.  Who longs for some crappy job with low pay?

O, I was hoping someone might mention Laing!! Thank you, Kat.

He actually postulated that schizophrenia is a rational break from an insane society. The difficulty I have seen in years of practice and again in school is that anyone who mentions that perhaps the society itself is insane gets a sorta pat on the head and then its suggested that the major reason for therapeutic effort is to help people be better with society's organization.

That wasn't overall true with Social Work as a lot of it deals with societal change, but some of my psych friends said that seemed to them the overall picture in psychology.

From was a gem. So was Laing. Too bad about the alcoholism and the suicide. *sigh*

But he bears re-reading or reading for those who've not yet done so.

Nichole

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 12:55:11 PM
R.D. Laing once said that madness is rational response to living in an insane world.  Might have been on to something there.

And beauty might be a society deal, but a good paying job is not.  Who longs for some crappy job with low pay?

My point was to do what you love and the money will follow.  For the first nearly 18 years of my career (which requires a doctorate) I had low pay but loved working.  Only now am I receiving a decent paycheck; that said many people in the trades make far more than I do with a HS education.  There are many people slaving away in cubes hating it but collecting nice paychecks, but others in the arts, for example, love what they do yet don't get paid much.

And McDonalds can be a career for some people; the lowly crappy job turns into management.

In a few years I will be likely giving up my hard-earned career for travel and happiness and an interesting online job, focusing on having fun in life and not so much on having to earn a ton of money to pay for stuff that needs cleaning and maintenance and sucks away my free time.  Life's too short and retirement never happens for a lot of people (death, disease, accident etc).

Jay

I'm always leery about reifying the abstraction that is "society", since that in itself usually leads to treating people as objects - screwing with real lives as a means to some greater "social" end.

On the other hand, there is an idea in America today that whomever disagrees with you is maladjusted, crazy, or evil.  I've seen it in business, religion, politics, clubs and social gatherings, and even in family relations.  If you have ideas that fall outside the mainstream, not only do people not want to hear them, but you're cast as some sort of monster for having them - very few people bother to assume good faith anymore.  Depending on the circumstances, you can wind up in a mental hospital, a prison, or even Gitmo.

For example, if I say that I oppose minimum wage laws, it's guaranteed that many readers of a different ideological bent will dismiss my opinion out of hand.  I'm just willfully ignorant, or crazy, or even malicious.  Because I don't agree with them, I'm automatically wrong.

How many people who disagree with me will believe that I have a logical, mature, and well-researched opinion on the topic, and that I'm willing to debate in good faith?

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 11:06:27 AM
A society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.

I disagree, and apparently so do most of the Swiss.  Nearly all Swiss households contain an automatic rifle, and they have one of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the world.  If it's an issue of cultural attitude, then I think we should be looking into exactly what makes the Swiss (and other gun-safe cultures) so responsible towards gun ownership.  I think we should be raising people's consciousness' and encouraging personal responsibility, not treating entire segments of the population as mental aberrants, or guilty 'till proven innocent.

The Swiss are allowed to keep guns while they are subject to service of their country. They have no he-man-woman-hater cowboy on the wide frontier mythmakers to extol violence for the sake of violence and appearing to be macho for the sake of some desk-chair ego.

You're right, Switzerland is a different culture. The truth is that allowing automatic weapons in American homes is a prescription for death, mayhem and murder on a wide-spread basis.

I mean, it's kewl, right?

Nichole

I didn't know that automatic weapons were considerered standard by socieity. Even the hunters and shooting enthusiasts I know (myself included) do not own such things.

Good grades? Yes, I got those late in my high school career, in trade school, and in college. Before my senior year of high school, I didn't care.

College? Yes, but only as far as my associate's degree.

Good paying job? Well, if I didn't live in the SF Bay Area, that would be true. But, It's taken me 17 years to get a "good paying job." But, it's still not quite enough (i.e., I'm nearly 40 with no savings to speak of).

Marriage? Yes. Septmeber 18 will be our 20th anniversary.

House? No, but we have a good sized apartment.

Kids? Yes. My son is 19.5 and my daughter is nearly 17.

Dog? No. Death before dishonor.

Overall, I would say that the society in which I live and was raised is a bit wacko. (Although, the last time I mentioned that on these boards, I was challenged by some of the very same folks who are now saying it is indeed wacko. Strange, n'est pas?)

Downsizing is something that does indeed seem to help. Though, there are some very specific pieces of musical gear I'd like to acquire. What I love is music. But, it seems that the money there will only follow if one's music is readily marketable. Why else would (sorry to use 80's musicians as metaphors) would Bon Jovi sell out huge venues and Larry Carlton gets shot outside the small clubs where he play? Bon Jovi's crap music was marketable; Larry Carlton's was quality.

There are certainly times when I'd love to just quit my job and write/record music full time. But, I just can't do that to my family yet. My wife is a minister; she doesn't make much money. They rely on me for the bulk of our income. I harbor no grudges regarding that; my kids never asked me to be born or to have me as their dad.

Maybe after the kids are gone and we can get by on less, I'll make a concerted effort to do what I love and see if the money will follow. It would certainly be saner than the job I have now.

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
Society's expecations (good grades, college, good paying job, marriage, house, kids, dog) is a myth and a trap.

There is a lot of good, but the media tells us that unless we subscribe to the above and do it well we're failures.

I can't say I ever felt the urge to buy into the media's conception of success.  I don't know anyone who has, either - everyone claims to be unaffected by advertising and pop culture.  It's always someone else who's the victim of unrealistic social expectations.  How arrogant we are. ;D

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
I think the culture of consumerism and beauty and conformity would make anyone insane...

And yet, in many ways transitioning is the ultimate act of conformity, ya know? Heck, everything I've done is an attempt to conform, to blend in, to become invisible and "normal" and "just like everyone else."

~ Katie Marie ~

Quote from: Kate on September 11, 2008, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
I think the culture of consumerism and beauty and conformity would make anyone insane...

And yet, in many ways transitioning is the ultimate act of conformity, ya know? Heck, everything I've done is an attempt to conform, to blend in, to become invisible and "normal" and "just like everyone else."

~ Katie Marie ~

as always kate your right on the mark .

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 11:06:27 AM
And Fromm was talking what, 40-50 years ago, and its not got much better.  Clearly, and a society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.  And that's just one topic.

I dunno, i mean, it's a piece of our culture that evolved out of the Revolution. Besides, the less laws regulating us, the more we must be responsible for ourselves.

*CORRECTION* I missed the word Automatic. I don't agree that this is an overall "Cutural Norm" across the entire US. I stand by my opinion that ownership of guns should be unrestricted.



Posted on: September 11, 2008, 03:56:44 PM

---

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
I think the culture of consumerism and beauty and conformity would make anyone insane.  Society's expecations (good grades, college, good paying job, marriage, house, kids, dog) is a myth and a trap.

There is a lot of good, but the media tells us that unless we subscribe to the above and do it well we're failures.

Leaving the rat race and downsizing my life and living it against the grain has been truly freeing in every sense of the word.

Jay

YES. THIS. I must admit weakness when it comes to the Beauty Myth tho  :embarrassed:

I think the perception that (anerican) society turning into a giant loony-bin is due to the direction it is headed. While some of the change is good, too many americans cling to old deadly myths, and as a result, are stuck on stupid.

Quote from: Nephie on September 11, 2008, 02:07:15 PM
I'm always leery about reifying the abstraction that is "society", since that in itself usually leads to treating people as objects - screwing with real lives as a means to some greater "social" end.

That is why the term "Human Resources" was invented.  ;)

And please excuse my going off topic but I feel that I must slay the machine gun myth.
Yes, Americans can own select-fire weapons.
No, it is not wide-spread.
Yes, it is regulated, both federal (firearm registration with the ATFE) and state (some ban ownership)
No, crime with automatic weapons are the exception. (Bank of America shoot-out)
Yes, owners of registered select-fire weapons are generally quite the law abiding bunch.

Quote from: Nephie on September 11, 2008, 03:31:13 PM

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
Society's expecations (good grades, college, good paying job, marriage, house, kids, dog) is a myth and a trap.

There is a lot of good, but the media tells us that unless we subscribe to the above and do it well we're failures.

I can't say I ever felt the urge to buy into the media's conception of success.  I don't know anyone who has, either - everyone claims to be unaffected by advertising and pop culture.  It's always someone else who's the victim of unrealistic social expectations.  How arrogant we are. ;D

Actually, tekla has always been rather outspoken that he makes lotsa money and enjoys the comfort and freedom that offers him. Others here have as well.

I think our social/political attitudes are what's being decried here. And maybe that tendency we have to find that more is never quite enough.

As for the owners, legal, of automatic weapons, I have no doubt that they are law-abiding for the most part.

The ones who buy from trucks are the one's I worry about, not the ones who go through the ATF. Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Aryan Nations, and assorted survivalists who foresee Armageddon and wanna hasten it's arrival.

Nichole

Everyone has issues, most people need some sort of therapy, and a lot of people don't bother to ever step into a doctor's office...

Quote from: Nichole on September 11, 2008, 04:11:11 PM

Quote from: Nephie on September 11, 2008, 03:31:13 PM

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
Society's expecations (good grades, college, good paying job, marriage, house, kids, dog) is a myth and a trap.

There is a lot of good, but the media tells us that unless we subscribe to the above and do it well we're failures.

I can't say I ever felt the urge to buy into the media's conception of success.  I don't know anyone who has, either - everyone claims to be unaffected by advertising and pop culture.  It's always someone else who's the victim of unrealistic social expectations.  How arrogant we are. ;D

Actually, tekla has always been rather outspoken that he makes lotsa money and enjoys the comfort and freedom that offers him. Others here have as well.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean... my point was that lots of people decry the unrealistic imagery and ideas put forth by the media, but few actually believe it matters in their own lives.  Take scorn for advertising as an example - whether it's harmful or not, all the vitriol is about what it does to "other people".  How many people are going to stand up and say that they can't control themselves, so they shouldn't be exposed to advertisements?

Quote from: Nephie on September 12, 2008, 12:34:09 AM
How many people are going to stand up and say that they can't control themselves, so they shouldn't be exposed to advertisements?

*stands up and raises his hand* it's why i walked away from yahoo! Mail and TV and magazines.

Quote from: Elwood on September 11, 2008, 05:00:41 PM
Everyone has issues, most people need some sort of therapy, and a lot of people don't bother to ever step into a doctor's office...

If most people need therapy, than it's possible that lots of doctors need therapy too.  Scary thought.

Posted on: September 12, 2008, 01:40:55 AM

---

Quote from: iFindMeHere on September 12, 2008, 12:40:48 AM

Quote from: Nephie on September 12, 2008, 12:34:09 AM
How many people are going to stand up and say that they can't control themselves, so they shouldn't be exposed to advertisements?

*stands up and raises his hand* it's why i walked away from yahoo! Mail and TV and magazines.

Ah, but isn't walking away from them a form of self-control?

Quote from: Nephie on September 12, 2008, 12:47:24 AM


Posted on: September 12, 2008, 01:40:55 AM

---

Quote from: iFindMeHere on September 12, 2008, 12:40:48 AM

Quote from: Nephie on September 12, 2008, 12:34:09 AM
How many people are going to stand up and say that they can't control themselves, so they shouldn't be exposed to advertisements?

*stands up and raises his hand* it's why i walked away from yahoo! Mail and TV and magazines.

Ah, but isn't walking away from them a form of self-control?

Nope. It's a form of discipline.

OH HAI META

What's the difference?  ???

From Wiktionary:

Noun
discipline (plural disciplines)
1. controlled behaviour; self-control

Quote from: Nephie on September 12, 2008, 01:01:07 AM
What's the difference?  ???

From Wiktionary:

Noun
discipline (plural disciplines)
1. controlled behaviour; self-control

My blood sugar is low so i can't explain it to you :(

"Select fire" how cute.  What they are, are military grade assult weapons, designed with one, and only one reason, and that's to kill people.  That some folks like me and my idiot friends find them great fun to take up to the mountians and cut down trees with them (often while loaded) I'm sure is not much of a consolation perhaps. 

I think rational people, myself included from time to time, find a huge difference in a shotgun or hunting rifle and tactical assult weapons and think we ought to try to ban the second and leave the first alone.

Quote from: tekla on September 12, 2008, 11:03:05 AM
"Select fire" how cute.  What they are, are military grade assult weapons, designed with one, and only one reason, and that's to kill people.  That some folks like me and my idiot friends find them great fun to take up to the mountians and cut down trees with them (often while loaded) I'm sure is not much of a consolation perhaps. 

I think rational people, myself included from time to time, find a huge difference in a shotgun or hunting rifle and tactical assult weapons and think we ought to try to ban the second and leave the first alone.

I can stand behind that as well.

Nichole

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 11:06:27 AM
a society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.  And that's just one topic.

That has NOTHING to do with society, except that it helps distill hostility.

Quote from: Annwyn on September 12, 2008, 08:01:46 PM

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 11:06:27 AM
a society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.  And that's just one topic.

That has NOTHING to do with society, except that it helps distill hostility.

EXAAACTLY. "Oh you want to rob me? You've got a what? Hunh! Me too! Pretty shiny hunh?"

Quote from: Annwyn on September 12, 2008, 08:01:46 PM

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 11:06:27 AM
a society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.  And that's just one topic.

That has NOTHING to do with society, except that it helps distill hostility.

I dunno about the former statement. Looking from the outside, we would certainly list that as one of the features of American culture, the guns. It's fairly unique in the developed world.

Dennis

I think "fairly unique" is a rather charitable usage, Dennis.

Can you think of another country in the developed world that allows automatic weaponry into the homes of its citizenry? I cannot.

And yes, it has plenty to do with "society." It has to do with wild-west and modern paranoid fantasies about the need to blow away people who somehow offend another or that someone may feel are a threat to them.

Less gun availability has proven again and again in this country to be a key to lowering the rate of murders. I think what is forever misunderstood by those who read the NRA and right-wing screeders is that most murders are not now and have never been committed in the course of home invasions, robberies, muggings and certainly not by the psychotic schizophrenics of the nation.

They are committed by husbands, wives and friends upon one another because someone has the ability to resort as a "law-abiding person" (until, of course, they aren't any longer) to the gun they have stashed in the bedroom under a pillow of in the sock-drawer.

Yes, it speaks very much to the society and the conditioned way Americans always handle disagreement or someone else doing what we don't want them to. Kinda like suggesting the need to go to Iraq and "blow them away," etc.

Nichole

Yeah, not being American, I don't feel I have the right to comment on it as though it were my country's domestic policy. It certainly does affect my travel plans though. I tend not to travel to the US very often, and particularly, I wouldn't choose it for a camping trip because it doesn't feel like a safe place to me. But that's just me as a foreigner not being comfortable with the idea of an armed populace.

Dennis

Catherine and I have our moments of worrying about camping as well. And we are both life-long citizens. We've considered a couple of wilderness hikes and camps for up to two weeks at a time along the Appalachian Trail.

It doesn't happen often, but there are incidents of women being raped and murdered on the Trail in a few areas. We've decided to stick to drive-in sites for the moment until perhaps we can get to Nova Scotia, Quebec, or Newfoundland for summer camping.

Not all of that has to do with guns, but until we can get a group of maybe six that doesn't include our sons we are leery of making the treks.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on September 13, 2008, 11:44:47 AM
I think "fairly unique" is a rather charitable usage, Dennis.

Can you think of another country in the developed world that allows automatic weaponry into the homes of its citizenry? I cannot.

And yes, it has plenty to do with "society." It has to do with wild-west and modern paranoid fantasies about the need to blow away people who somehow offend another or that someone may feel are a threat to them.

Less gun availability has proven again and again in this country to be a key to lowering the rate of murders. I think what is forever misunderstood by those who read the NRA and right-wing screeders is that most murders are not now and have never been committed in the course of home invasions, robberies, muggings and certainly not by the psychotic schizophrenics of the nation.

They are committed by husbands, wives and friends upon one another because someone has the ability to resort as a "law-abiding person" (until, of course, they aren't any longer) to the gun they have stashed in the bedroom under a pillow of in the sock-drawer.

Yes, it speaks very much to the society and the conditioned way Americans always handle disagreement or someone else doing what we don't want them to. Kinda like suggesting the need to go to Iraq and "blow them away," etc.

Nichole

As a pro-gun non-republican--and i'm not libertarian either--for me the gun issue is a Civil Freedom. Until I intentionally harm another person, I don't think it's the government's business what I do, let alone own.

You see, that's actually an outpouring of a deeper issue - Government is supposed to be "by the people for the people". It should be a public servant, not a nursemaid. Seems that the ruling class has subverted that :(

American society is definitely weird, I often feel as though I was born in another time and place, and was dropped off here. Still waiting for my ride home. I'm an outsider of this consumer oriented, mass media fed culture. Then again, maybe many of us are. I turned off my TV in 1993, which is coincidentally when I transitioned. Among the smartest things I ever did.

Z

Quote from: Dennis on September 13, 2008, 11:31:18 AM

Quote from: Annwyn on September 12, 2008, 08:01:46 PM

Quote from: tekla on September 11, 2008, 11:06:27 AM
a society that somehow thinks its OK to have automatic weapons as a standard household item has got some issues.  And that's just one topic.

That has NOTHING to do with society, except that it helps distill hostility.

I dunno about the former statement. Looking from the outside, we would certainly list that as one of the features of American culture, the guns. It's fairly unique in the developed world.

Dennis

Um, not at all.  Some countries make it mandatory that each household have a fully automatic firearm and inhabitants be trained on how to use it.  FUnny how those countries also boast a VERY low crime rate... hrmm, you'd think they'd all be out shooting each other, right?   ::)

What countries are those, Annwyn? Don't think I've heard that before.

Dennis

Quote from: Dennis on September 13, 2008, 05:42:39 PM
What countries are those, Annwyn? Don't think I've heard that before.

Dennis

I heard by word of mouth that Switzerland required automatic firearms, but upon looking into it I saw that they just have an incredibly high gun ownership rate per capita, and it's really no surprise that accompanying that there's a very low crime rate as well.  Of the gun-related crime, most of it is family related murders.  300 gun related deaths a year, throughout the whole country, as opposed to the USA.  I'm glad I own a firearm, and I'll be even happier when I am of age to purchase a pistol and carry it under a weapons permit.  I know that my pepper spray has already saved my life on more than one occaision, accompanied by luck.  There should be less luck involved when my life is on the line.

Quote from: Kate on September 11, 2008, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: sneakersjay on September 11, 2008, 12:31:02 PM
I think the culture of consumerism and beauty and conformity would make anyone insane...

And yet, in many ways transitioning is the ultimate act of conformity, ya know? Heck, everything I've done is an attempt to conform, to blend in, to become invisible and "normal" and "just like everyone else."

~ Katie Marie ~

Yeah, it is quite ironic that I spent so much time wanting to be different, when I found out eventually that what I really wanted was to be like everyone else.  :D

Quote from: Annwyn on September 13, 2008, 05:37:13 PM

Um, not at all.  Some countries make it mandatory that each household have a fully automatic firearm and inhabitants be trained on how to use it.  FUnny how those countries also boast a VERY low crime rate... hrmm, you'd think they'd all be out shooting each other, right?   ::)

What you and others are either not seeing or don't want to see is that you are partially right. It's not the guns that are problematic. It's the gun-culture that's problematic. Die Schweiz hasn't a gun-culture, nor a wild west culture, nor a culture that measures a penis with a gun extension added to it. Nor are they noted for firing first and asking questions later.

I perfectly agree that the problem is not the guns themselves. The problem is the morons who own them. Sorry, after two hundred years of gun culture it will require a good bit more from American citizens to provided "safety" with an automatic rifle in every home, or even 40.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on September 13, 2008, 06:34:53 PM
I perfectly agree that the problem is not the guns themselves. The problem is the morons who own them. Sorry, after two hundred years of gun culture it will require a good bit more from American citizens to provided "safety" with an automatic rifle in every home, or even 40.

The real problem is not a "gun-culture" per say, but hate which is unfortunately, integrated into almost every human. Just look at the UK, the government took away gun ownership for almost everybody and they still found ways to murder each other.

Quote from: Nichole on September 13, 2008, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Annwyn on September 13, 2008, 05:37:13 PM

Um, not at all.  Some countries make it mandatory that each household have a fully automatic firearm and inhabitants be trained on how to use it.  FUnny how those countries also boast a VERY low crime rate... hrmm, you'd think they'd all be out shooting each other, right?   ::)

What you and others are either not seeing or don't want to see is that you are partially right. It's not the guns that are problematic. It's the gun-culture that's problematic. Die Schweiz hasn't a gun-culture, nor a wild west culture, nor a culture that measures a penis with a gun extension added to it. Nor are they noted for firing first and asking questions later.

I perfectly agree that the problem is not the guns themselves. The problem is the morons who own them. Sorry, after two hundred years of gun culture it will require a good bit more from American citizens to provided "safety" with an automatic rifle in every home, or even 40.

Nichole

it's how we *became* a country...

Quote from: Flan Princess on September 13, 2008, 06:56:17 PM
The real problem is not a "gun-culture" per say, but hate which is unfortunately, integrated into almost every human. Just look at the UK, the government took away gun ownership for almost everybody and they still found ways to murder each other.

Very true. In our case it's knives that are now the big deal. But people can be determined, take away everything and we'd bash each other over the head with rocks. It's the unbridled aggression and sense of "I'm more important than you, and my needs are greater than yours" which need to be dealt with, rather than the methods used to express them. Desensitisation and dehumanisation turn people into either potential threats or potential victims.

To quote Joseph Stalin:

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."

Owning a firearm and owning the desire to use it are two different things. Take care of the latter and the former is no longer an issue. :)

Quote from: Leiandra on September 13, 2008, 07:26:37 PM

Quote from: Flan Princess on September 13, 2008, 06:56:17 PM
The real problem is not a "gun-culture" per say, but hate which is unfortunately, integrated into almost every human. Just look at the UK, the government took away gun ownership for almost everybody and they still found ways to murder each other.

Very true. In our case it's knives that are now the big deal. But people can be determined, take away everything and we'd bash each other over the head with rocks. It's the unbridled aggression and sense of "I'm more important than you, and my needs are greater than yours" which need to be dealt with, rather than the methods used to express them. Desensitisation and dehumanisation turn people into either potential threats or potential victims.

Owning a firearm and owning the desire to use it are two different things. Take care of the latter and the former is no longer an issue. :)

*edited because I sounded sarcastic and didn't mean to* I would argue that those who fought the Revolutionary War on opposite sides of their brothers and fathers and sons probably didn't want to pull the trigger.

NO, it is not "how we became a country." We became a country using a French Navy and Army to do much of the work and luck and the open connaivance of the Brits to do the rest. That myth about all those minutemen is about of the same order as the cherry-tree chopping and the throwing of a pound coin across the Potomac {there were no dollars to throw at the time.] I've thrown a quarter across it in Maryland. It was rather easy in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

Yep, Wiki for guns in Die Schweiz. It's only as good as who wrote it but to tell the truth I didn't really feel strongly enough about Switzerland to fact-check any further than there. The so-called "required" automatic weapons are semi-automatic after military service ends at 30, and nothing about being required for anyone. Just a high rate of gun ownership and enough problems that there are pushes to limit both ammo and guns.

It would be nice if, rather than shooting from the hip, one would go and make sure of factual information, like the universal "requirement" and "guns won the Revolution" and cite some actual facts rather than age-old American myths.

Nichole

Quote from: iFindMeHere on September 13, 2008, 07:29:20 PM

Quote from: Leiandra on September 13, 2008, 07:26:37 PM

Quote from: Flan Princess on September 13, 2008, 06:56:17 PM
The real problem is not a "gun-culture" per say, but hate which is unfortunately, integrated into almost every human. Just look at the UK, the government took away gun ownership for almost everybody and they still found ways to murder each other.

Very true. In our case it's knives that are now the big deal. But people can be determined, take away everything and we'd bash each other over the head with rocks. It's the unbridled aggression and sense of "I'm more important than you, and my needs are greater than yours" which need to be dealt with, rather than the methods used to express them. Desensitisation and dehumanisation turn people into either potential threats or potential victims.

Owning a firearm and owning the desire to use it are two different things. Take care of the latter and the former is no longer an issue. :)

*edited because I sounded sarcastic and didn't mean to* I would argue that those who fought the Revolutionary War on opposite sides of their brothers and fathers and sons probably didn't want to pull the trigger.

Perhaps not, but war is not the same thing. No one sat at home in their armchair is ordered to pull the trigger on anyone. Those decisions come from the individual. War is a whole different kind of stupidity.

i'm not perfect and don't expect myself to be. I'm more focused on keeping an even keel and as such am respectfully bowing out of this conversation.

QuoteToday, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. This training may be a young man's first encounter with his countrymen who speak different languages. (Switzerland has four official languages: German, French, Italian and Romansch.)

Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle. They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training. From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods. Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice. Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service. Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

Interesting and very different from buying a gun at K-Mart. I read too that Switzerland officially adopted a position of armed neutrality in 1515 and an armed citizenry helped enforce that. I would have to agree with Nichole and others that it's more a cultural issue than a gun issue. I wouldn't worry a bit about camping in Switzerland, even though there is a heavily armed populace.

Thanks Annwyn, I didn't know that about Switzerland. Back to more reading.

Dennis

Quote from: iFindMeHere on September 13, 2008, 07:18:50 PM

Quote from: Nichole on September 13, 2008, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Annwyn on September 13, 2008, 05:37:13 PM

Um, not at all.  Some countries make it mandatory that each household have a fully automatic firearm and inhabitants be trained on how to use it.  FUnny how those countries also boast a VERY low crime rate... hrmm, you'd think they'd all be out shooting each other, right?   ::)

What you and others are either not seeing or don't want to see is that you are partially right. It's not the guns that are problematic. It's the gun-culture that's problematic. Die Schweiz hasn't a gun-culture, nor a wild west culture, nor a culture that measures a penis with a gun extension added to it. Nor are they noted for firing first and asking questions later.

I perfectly agree that the problem is not the guns themselves. The problem is the morons who own them. Sorry, after two hundred years of gun culture it will require a good bit more from American citizens to provided "safety" with an automatic rifle in every home, or even 40.

Nichole

it's how we *became* a country...

am I the only one who thinks that breaking with Britain was a stupid thing to do?

Posted on: September 13, 2008, 09:33:51 PM

---

What happened to the notion that american society is insane?

I'm not smart enough to answer that question.  There is something wrong with how we are governed, though.  Whether or not society has gone insane, our media and news outlets do the most they possibly can to make us feel like everything has gone insane and we have no way to control it except to turn off the noise and try to convince others to do likewise.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

~Friedrich Nietzsche

Collective insanity, perhaps. ;) But then if most are insane... those few who are not will be the ones deemed mad. ;D

In all the gun discussion, has anyone on the anti-gun side ever considered that such a policy can only be enforced by having the government shoot people who disobey?  That's the threat behind every law, isn't it?

Further, do people like George W. Bush suddenly become noble, trustworthy, and competent when their people have all the guns?  Even if you're hoping for Obama in '08 and you're sure he'll do no wrong while in office, you've got to see that he won't be around forever, and there's always the chance of another McBush.

And what about opposition to monopoly?  If it's bad to have small-scale monopolies in the private sector, how is it good to create a COLOSSAL monopoly on GUNS, run by a class of people famous for corruption and incompetence?

If you think people should only have firearms for personal defense, think again - "granting" ordinary citizens the "right" to have semi-automatic weapons only is practically identical to taking away guns completely.  Think about it - the ultimate power of an armed citizenry is the ability to challenge the government, and is the morally correct course when the government becomes oppressive.  However, If the military has recoilless rifles while we've got Saturday night specials, then we might as well have nothing.

You can't get out of the problem by saying "We are the government".  That's a sham.  The entire state apparatus exists and does what it does whether any of us want it to or not - this is not consensus reality.  If the President declared martial law tomorrow and suspended the Constitution, I'm sure most people would hate it, but it wouldn't change anything.

Posted on: September 13, 2008, 11:24:23 PM

---

Yes, many Americans have swallowed a collection of myths, lies, half-truths, and delusions.  Much of what passes for American history, politics, and religious dogma can be found in this collection.  This witches' brew, when combined with the financial momentum from a more economically liberal time, has made the USA uniquely dangerous in the world.  America is a flaming Mack truck full of strung-out lunatics singing peans to rich liars while careening through a crowded supermarket.

Quote from: Nichole on September 13, 2008, 07:35:22 PM
NO, it is not "how we became a country." We became a country using a French Navy and Army to do much of the work and luck and the open connaivance of the Brits to do the rest. That myth about all those minutemen is about of the same order as the cherry-tree chopping and the throwing of a pound coin across the Potomac {there were no dollars to throw at the time.] I've thrown a quarter across it in Maryland. It was rather easy in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

Yep, Wiki for guns in Die Schweiz. It's only as good as who wrote it but to tell the truth I didn't really feel strongly enough about Switzerland to fact-check any further than there. The so-called "required" automatic weapons are semi-automatic after military service ends at 30, and nothing about being required for anyone. Just a high rate of gun ownership and enough problems that there are pushes to limit both ammo and guns.

It would be nice if, rather than shooting from the hip, one would go and make sure of factual information, like the universal "requirement" and "guns won the Revolution" and cite some actual facts rather than age-old American myths.

Nichole

I corrected myself, and then I further cited some facts.  Talk about selective reading, STFU.

I said in the beginning, that I was trying to establish a distinction between full fire military grade weapons, and sport guns.  I'm not against guns, and oddly enough I don't think people feel any safer knowing everyone around them is armed.  That it might help you feel safer to be armed is perhaps an illusion, as I feel that it might encourage poorer choices through a false sense of courage or protection.

But, and here is the point I want to make, its insane when one can not make a simple distinction anymore.  There is even a name for this insanity and its Zero Tolerance.  People can't distinguish between a teen age girl giving Midol to one of her GFs and selling her crack, they are dealt with in exactly the same way.  A gun, or a kitchen knife to cut an apple in the lunchroom?  Everyone Panic!  They are both weapons.  A sane person can make simple decisions, so too should a sane society.

Yet another example of social insanity is a complete and total lack of civility in society.  People do not deal with others out of politeness but more out of an almost psychopathic sense that they, and they alone live in this world, and everything affects them and only them.  A society of self-contained individualism is no society at all, not even according to even one of the more than 150 different definitions that sociology uses.

Quote from: tekla on September 16, 2008, 09:44:00 PM
Yet another example of social insanity is a complete and total lack of civility in society.  People do not deal with others out of politeness but more out of an almost psychopathic sense that they, and they alone live in this world, and everything affects them and only them.  A society of self-contained individualism is no society at all, not even according to even one of the more than 150 different definitions that sociology uses.

That's solipsism, not individualism.  Individualism is nothing more than the belief that individual human beings are the moral actors and judges of value in the world, not some collective consciousness.  Ergo, it's people who have rights, not society - it's wrong to hurt real people in the name of "the greater good".

I don't know about you, but I've found that lots of Americans are very hostile to individualism, and that's what's been fueling the lack of civility.  Many people are so obsessed with perceived class interests and collective beliefs that they see outsiders as either objects to exploit or enemies to destroy.

When your out sitting on the central campus lawn in your Birkenstocks and Tevas drinking jug wine and smoking grass after that big Philo 101 test - its Solipsism.

When you are interacting with real people, in real time, in the real world - its psychopathic.

But what does that have to do with individualism?  Psychopaths don't care about individual rights, so they're not individualists.  They're just self-absorbed and antisocial.

I said, "self-contained individualism" which is not the philosophy of Individualism.  So, perhaps I should have just said people who feel they are the only ones that matter at all.

Quote from: tekla on September 16, 2008, 09:44:00 PM
But, and here is the point I want to make, its insane when one can not make a simple distinction anymore.  There is even a name for this insanity and its Zero Tolerance.  People can't distinguish between a teen age girl giving Midol to one of her GFs and selling her crack, they are dealt with in exactly the same way.  A gun, or a kitchen knife to cut an apple in the lunchroom?  Everyone Panic!  They are both weapons.  A sane person can make simple decisions, so too should a sane society.

'K, here's a question - how do you determine whether a society is sane?  What's your baseline?  What does insanity even mean in the case of a collective?  Just as the human body is more than the sum of its parts, and we don't judge a person's mental health by what their cells are doing, isn't it possible that a society's mental health can't be inferred from the actions of it's component humans?

(I'm not trying to be annoying, I'd just really like to hear people's opinions on this)

Largely the same way we do in single people (notice how I avoided using the 'I' word) on a case by case basis - by how they deal with reality.

Aw, come on.  The only issue I had was with the use of "individualism" the philosophy, not "individuals".  :P

Anyway...

Quote from: tekla on September 16, 2008, 11:17:45 PMLargely the same way we do in single people (notice how I avoided using the 'I' word) on a case by case basis - by how they deal with reality.

Doesn't a society experience a different level of reality than an individual?  None of us know what it's like to be a society, so how do we judge its sanity?  With people, we know about basic human desires and motivations, and whether someone's actions are congruent with those desires.  With societies, who knows?  Even to say that a society is "repressive", or "progressive", or "wealthy", or "impoverished" is just us projecting our mindset onto an aggregate of people, and has nothing to do with the actual emergent organism.

Quote from: Nephie on September 12, 2008, 12:47:24 AM

Quote from: Elwood on September 11, 2008, 05:00:41 PM
Everyone has issues, most people need some sort of therapy, and a lot of people don't bother to ever step into a doctor's office...

If most people need therapy, than it's possible that lots of doctors need therapy too.  Scary thought.

Posted on: September 12, 2008, 01:40:55 AM

---

I've always been amazed at the number of clinical psychologists I know who see therapists. But then, I guess they get a deal.

Everyone has issues, most people need some sort of therapy

While I might agree that everyone has some issues, I doubt that 'most' need therapy, or would have any real and lasting benefit from it.  And, FTR, I think that the reason therapists see therapists is that it is hard dealing with everyone else's problems, but more than that, its the only person they can talk to about it without violating laws regarding patient confidentiality.

But for national sanity, that trolley is off the tracks and has been so for a long time.  Consider the current financial meltdown.  Cassandra types like me have been trying to point it out for well on 15 years now, that you could not deregulate the entire financial and corporate structure and somehow expect to get greater accountability out of it. 

Or... the idea that we could fight a major war and not expect any sort of sacrifice from public.  It was not, 'blood, sweat and tears' it was 'lets go shopping' and we have pretty clear evidence that while the first tactic worked, the second did not.  You could not do it without raising taxes unless you wanted to put the debt levels into record levels.  So we now have the second.

You can not claim that we are the world's leading democracy when more people vote for American Idol than president.  But we do anyway.

And the qualification for getting that office is 'who's the guy I'd like to have a beer with."  Look, I like my drinking buddies as much as the next guy, but - save one perhaps - I would not want to see them as president, thought I'm sure they all would have been better than what we got.

Doesn't the Fed's ridiculous level of credit expansion have something to do with it?  Even Keynes didn't believe in running the printing press all the time.

Of course, but its not a magic bullet deal, there are many problems, none of which have been addressed.

Quote from: tekla on September 17, 2008, 09:50:14 AM
Consider the current financial meltdown.  Cassandra types like me have been trying to point it out for well on 15 years now, that you could not deregulate the entire financial and corporate structure and somehow expect to get greater accountability out of it. 

It doesn't seem as if the "Invisible Hand" was ever considered an accountability mechanism in any of the current financial meltdown. Insider knowledge, ready bailouts for those deemed indispensible, the use of more and more exotic and arcane instruments of debt that were used as "securities?" How invisible is that? Hands and heads rather visibly in the cookie jar. Kinda like the girl for the Powerball lottery going through the numbered balls and pulling them out after careful ionvestigation. "O, my number won," says she!! Major surprise!

Nope, no accountability was needed or wanted. There was always that ready source of capital investment: the American taxpayer, to offer up security to the unsecure. Public accountability and "private profit." Just the way the Phil Gramm's and John McCain's and the NeoCons wanted it.

They play and get rich and those who pay for their debt-riches can barely afford to put gas in their cars. Ain't that the way the world is supposed to work? Apres Moi le Deluge.

Nikki

Well invisible hands, much like invisible friends, well that's pretty close to crazy talk as it is.  I always that metaphor was very dumb.

But yeah, as the old blues songs said: If it keeps on raining the levee is going to break, and its pretty much pouring right now.

Quote from: tekla on September 19, 2008, 08:38:21 AM
Well invisible hands, much like invisible friends, well that's pretty close to crazy talk as it is.  I always that metaphor was very dumb.

But yeah, as the old blues songs said: If it keeps on raining the levee is going to break, and its pretty much pouring right now.

takla your right on that thought  but the sad part of this is it has been  pouring for a while now . until the levee broke, and when it did . well we

know what happened there . and the thing that gets me is that the goverment steped in and did all these  buy out,s and droped a good amount of

cash into the stock market,s to get it back into floating again. but yet the goverment did not step in and stop or rasie a hand to help thos who

got into bad loans that the Mortgage companys gave out . and the other sad part is that the people who took them loans from the Mortgage got

some bad loans . with high rates .. and high payments . that they was not really able to handle in the frist place.  it,s funny how the media  is able

to sing the  public into some kinda of sleep  . and the fact that the public  buys it hook line and bait . makes one wonder what the next shoe drop

will bring next :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:

Quote from: Nichole on September 19, 2008, 08:28:49 AM

Quote from: tekla on September 17, 2008, 09:50:14 AM
Consider the current financial meltdown.  Cassandra types like me have been trying to point it out for well on 15 years now, that you could not deregulate the entire financial and corporate structure and somehow expect to get greater accountability out of it. 

It doesn't seem as if the "Invisible Hand" was ever considered an accountability mechanism in any of the current financial meltdown. Insider knowledge, ready bailouts for those deemed indispensible, the use of more and more exotic and arcane instruments of debt that were used as "securities?" How invisible is that? Hands and heads rather visibly in the cookie jar. Kinda like the girl for the Powerball lottery going through the numbered balls and pulling them out after careful ionvestigation. "O, my number won," says she!! Major surprise!

Nope, no accountability was needed or wanted. There was always that ready source of capital investment: the American taxpayer, to offer up security to the unsecure. Public accountability and "private profit." Just the way the Phil Gramm's and John McCain's and the NeoCons wanted it.

They play and get rich and those who pay for their debt-riches can barely afford to put gas in their cars. Ain't that the way the world is supposed to work? Apres Moi le Deluge.

Nikki

Good observations. I'd add that this is a structural problem in American democracy IMO, not just a problem of conservative ideology. I think its roots can be found in the SC ruling that mandates the equivalance of money and political speech.

Running for office means spending much of your life asking others to give you money. That has to be a degrading experience no matter how much you try not to see it in that way. Once in office it is probably very satisfying having people come to you, tell you how smart you are and offer you large amounts of cash for your next campaign - because they "appreciate your values". All that easy cash means less begging later.

I think liberals and conservatives are equally susceptible to this pressure. If anything, the conservatives are being more upfront by attempting to adopt rules by process that make it all that much easier. I consider myself liberal for the most part but I'd have to admit that our side generally indulges just as much but prefers to pretend that we don't do it.

Thank you, Margaret. :)

I don't disagree about that Supreme's ruling Margaret. But I also cast my eyes back to what, 1886, here In the landmark 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, a railroad company refused to pay a special county tax in California, arguing (much as sludge hauler Synagro would do in Pennsylvania more than a century later) that to treat it differently from everyone else violated its constitutional rights. Speaking from the bench, Chief Justice Morrison Waite announced, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment...applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Cite (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/when_is_a_corporation_like_a_freed_slave.html) and Cite (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=394) where the Sc of the time basically granted individual privilege as an eternally alive person to a corporation.

That was not exactly what the ruling said although the justices were in agreement that they did consider that to be the case. It has dominated our corporate ideology since.

Nichole

Quote from: tekla on September 17, 2008, 09:50:14 AM
Consider the current financial meltdown.  Cassandra types like me have been trying to point it out for well on 15 years now, that you could not deregulate the entire financial and corporate structure and somehow expect to get greater accountability out of it.

I know someone who works in the field of financial printing, and everything she's told me illustrates just the opposite.  She's involved with lots of SEC filings, and is very familiar with the big players in the financial meltdown - Bear Sterns, AIG, Merrill-Lynch etc.  She says SEC regs and transparency rules are getting more complex all the time - it's anything but unregulated.  She's worked in that field for thirty years, and this is the most heavily regulated it's ever been.

Quote from: Nephie on September 19, 2008, 10:42:43 AM

Quote from: tekla on September 17, 2008, 09:50:14 AM
Consider the current financial meltdown.  Cassandra types like me have been trying to point it out for well on 15 years now, that you could not deregulate the entire financial and corporate structure and somehow expect to get greater accountability out of it.

I know someone who works in the field of financial printing, and everything she's told me illustrates just the opposite.  She's involved with lots of SEC filings, and is very familiar with the big players in the financial meltdown - Bear Sterns, AIG, Merrill-Lynch etc.  She says SEC regs and transparency rules are getting more complex all the time - it's anything but unregulated.  She's worked in that field for thirty years, and this is the most heavily regulated it's ever been.

Perhaps every word of that it true. But how often and how well do the regulators at SEC actually look into corporate books unless there is an Enron or Ivan Boesky when they basically do so after-the-fact?

Otherwise they are busy trying to figure out all the arcane "securities" that package debt and sell it as "capital." Eh?

Nikki

Quote from: Nichole on September 19, 2008, 10:42:36 AM
Thank you, Margaret. :)

I don't disagree about that Supreme's ruling Margaret. But I also cast my eyes back to what, 1886, here In the landmark 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, a railroad company refused to pay a special county tax in California, arguing (much as sludge hauler Synagro would do in Pennsylvania more than a century later) that to treat it differently from everyone else violated its constitutional rights. Speaking from the bench, Chief Justice Morrison Waite announced, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment...applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Cite (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/when_is_a_corporation_like_a_freed_slave.html) and Cite (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=394) where the Sc of the time basically granted individual privilege as an eternally alive person to a corporation.

That was not exactly what the ruling said although the justices were in agreement that they did consider that to be the case. It has dominated our corporate ideology since.

Nichole

Ah yes, the corporation as a person. That's got to be right up there with Bush v Gore at the pinnacle of judicial ideological bull->-bleeped-<- IMO. I am not a lawyer but you seem to be well versed in these things. (I'm not considered worthy of viewing your profile yet. ) Do you have a legal background if I may ask? You certainly write clearly.

Cheers, Margi

No, I don't have a legal background -- I have a Lit background, as in undergrad. Perhaps the lack of the Legal background is why I write clearly. That and a lot of practice.

I think you'll become worthy;) when you reach 15 posts, Margi. Check HERE (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,114.0.html) and be certain, please.

Thanks so much for the compliments. That was really sweet of you! :)

Nikki

Quote from: Nichole on September 19, 2008, 11:19:23 AM
No, I don't have a legal background -- I have a Lit background, as in undergrad. Perhaps the lack of the Legal background is why I write clearly. That and a lot of practice.

I think you'll become worthy;) when you reach 15 posts, Margi. Check HERE (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,114.0.html) and be certain, please.

Thanks so much for the compliments. That was really sweet of you! :)

Nikki

Actually, I can see where such restrictions on newbies could help protect members of the forum and that's good IMO. It is a bit of a hassle though. (Imagine a "chagrined" emoticon here" - definitely not  >:(  )  Cheers

Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific

Ahh, my favorite hit by the Supremes.

Quote from: Nichole on September 19, 2008, 11:19:23 AM
No, I don't have a legal background -- I have a Lit background, as in undergrad. Perhaps the lack of the Legal background is why I write clearly. That and a lot of practice.

*Dennis swats Nichole with a pillow*

Quote from: Dennis on September 20, 2008, 11:49:24 AM

Quote from: Nichole on September 19, 2008, 11:19:23 AM
No, I don't have a legal background -- I have a Lit background, as in undergrad. Perhaps the lack of the Legal background is why I write clearly. That and a lot of practice.

*Dennis swats Nichole with a pillow*

OOPS!! Forgot about the supervisor's real job. Except for you, Dennis!!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: *picks up a pillow herself and hits back*

Nichole

QuoteHas American Society Gone Insane?

only the flabheads who vote republican.

Quote from: Rebis on September 22, 2008, 07:49:40 AM

QuoteHas American Society Gone Insane?

only the flabheads who vote republican.

Even a conservative would have to be insane to vote Republican.  With third parties locked out of the system, the Democrats embody what little political sanity is left in this nation.

Democrats embody what little political sanity is left in this nation

Sadly, its very little, which makes it hard for people who don't really follow this - after all, American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars was on - to make any kind of informed choice. 

Quote from: tekla on September 22, 2008, 12:51:12 PM
Democrats embody what little political sanity is left in this nation

Sadly, its very little, which makes it hard for people who don't really follow this - after all, American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars was on - to make any kind of informed choice. 

:icon_lemon: better off watching howdy duity  :icon_dance: :icon_headfones: :icon_rockon: :icon_woowoo: :icon_woowoo: :laugh: :laugh:

The problem is too many Americans ARE Howdy-Doody. Heads of wood and someone else doing their talking for them. *sigh*

Better turn off the tube altogether.

Nikki

if I turn the tube off, I won't be able to see Gary Sinise hold a pair of squished eyeballs in his hands. 

:(

And hey, if you can't do that, what exactly is the reason for living?

exactly.   :)

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on September 11, 2008, 03:17:32 PM
Dog? No. Death before dishonor.

i don't understand the dog statement. i have a dog, and i just love her to pieces.

-ell

Quote from: ell on November 24, 2008, 07:23:44 PM

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on September 11, 2008, 03:17:32 PM
Dog? No. Death before dishonor.

i don't understand the dog statement. i have a dog, and i just love her to pieces.

-ell

I had to go back to my post to know how to reply to this.

My "dog" comment was part of a reply (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,43279.msg280069.html#msg280069 (http://index.php/topic,43279.msg280069.html#msg280069)) where I tried to address the expectations listed by Jay:

Quote from: sneakersjaySociety's expecations (good grades, college, good paying job, marriage, house, kids, dog) is a myth and a trap.

I was then addressing these various items one at a time. I would never have a dog, as I just don't like pets in general. I'm not entirely sure why dog was in the list, but I think the list was just a general list of the Ultimate Suburban Family.

oh no, dogs are not suburbian at all, per se. they are wonderful, wonderful creatures that add an awful lot of fun and sanity to a life. believe it or not, my little dog may well have saved two human lives already.

-ell