One vs. the Many

[monster_gardener]

Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.

That may be true in some places, I'm not sure, but I've been to Chennai and Bangalore for work and there were naked people walking around all over. Even non-untouchable males were not shy about lifting up their clothes and exposing themselves to scratch, or pissing in the street.

Sounds like the scene outside a North American or British nightclub, circa 2am.


Anyway India has tons of real problems aside from public urination, but they do have multi-party democracy figured out.

I wasn't making a value judgment. I like Indian society, though its collision with western economic materialism (in its capitalist and socialist forms) seems to be a total disaster so far. Filthy naked sadhus don't bother me, though the amount of trash and pollution makes an American dump seem like the Ritz Carlton.

My only point in mentioning India is was to point out their mulit-party political process, I could have grabbed any country with the same setup, I was just looking for a non-European example for novelty. My intent was not to debate Indian culture, which I personally like.

But India actually highlights something else which is on-topic, and that is that India is a country that is, as a whole, increasingly powerful and wealthy, but in an individual basis the average Indian is poor and lives in sometimes truly awful conditions. This is also true to some extent of China, Brazil, etc. What is interesting for our purposes is that this is also a potential future for the US and its citizens, and indeed it could be argued that you are well on your way already.

Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.

and indeed it could be argued that you are well on your way already

Remembering that you recently posted that 90% of America was a dump..........

Of course, if true, since you live in Canada, that would mean AIUI that you moved from Turkey to live next to a dump

Now I have heard
Of Migratory birds,
But what sort of Turkey would do that?

[noddy]

I mean name recognition in the primaries, 3rd party candidates of any kind are rarely looked at here.

aye, its a fringe position for fringe people and only they are aware of him or care about such issues...

the status quo baby boomer agenda is the mainstream of both parties and they differ only in the mechanism - private corporations or public servants.

sadly.

[Mr. Perfect]

I mean name recognition in the primaries, 3rd party candidates of any kind are rarely looked at here.

aye, its a fringe position for fringe people and only they are aware of him or care about such issues...

the status quo baby boomer agenda is the mainstream of both parties and they differ only in the mechanism - private corporations or public servants.

sadly.

No, voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote without a run off system, which we do not have. One of the few things I can criticize about longstanding American traditions, we need a run off system and a totally different primary system.

[noddy]

I mean name recognition in the primaries, 3rd party candidates of any kind are rarely looked at here.

aye, its a fringe position for fringe people and only they are aware of him or care about such issues...

the status quo baby boomer agenda is the mainstream of both parties and they differ only in the mechanism - private corporations or public servants.

sadly.

No, voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote without a run off system, which we do not have. One of the few things I can criticize about longstanding American traditions, we need a run off system and a totally different primary system.

i had a reply to this but realised the difference between your system and mine is such i dont have anything to say about the presidential position

[monster_gardener]

when it comes to oppressing the poor its the government in collusion with the middle class of both left and right wing flavours.

Absolutely. Below a certain threshold the poor cease to be people. Different economic classes can fight over their share of the bill, working class and middle class and the wealthy. But the poor annoy all of them and are looked down on by all of them. Plus they disproportionately suffer from mental illness and addiction, so the prospect of doing anything substantial to help them is very off-putting from a financial and return-no-investment point of view. So everybody above the cutoff is equally responsible, assuming you believe that anyone is responsible at all.

Worth noting that while the poor do better in systems with socialized medical care than they do without, they are still woefully neglected in those states as well.

socialised healthcare does mean better statistics in some cases - not all - because many of the crustier people just flat out ignore the system.

True. But others have access to medications such as anti-psychotics, and can then start using the stepladder of group homes and social assistance to find their way to a permanent residence or employment. What is interesting about all of that is that it takes place largely ignored by the public, and if you were to poll people on it a majority of them would probably oppose the whole thing as an over-expensive waste of time. So even when you win you lose, in terms of public perception.

the truth of it is that without all these rules that enforce the middle class, a large percentage of the white working class would join the tropical aborigines in the master plan of sitting by the beach and fishing your daily meal and then spending your meagre dollars on piss n smokes... when you run out of space you have a little war and get the numbers back down again, just like all the tropical groups do.

I wonder about that. When you start to address the supposedly widespread permanent welfare class of subsidized smokers and TV watchers then the public opinion on social programs really crashes, but its hard to imagine that this is actually the problem people say it is. Does the existence of these programs encourage people to give up on work or ambition? In any case the countries that have comprehensive social safety nets are nicer in every conceivable way than those that don't. Its much easier to be unemployed in Denmark than America, and that doesn't seem to make America any nicer due to the supposedly coercive and work-encouraging approach of a deficient social safety net. Whatever numbers might say about America being the richest nation on Earth, anybody with a passport knows that %99 of the US is a total dump compared to any socialized Western European hellhole. Maybe not Scotland.

the upper middle class dream of it aswell, hence noble savage myths - however they have intellectualised their way out of it through constant reinforcement of why dragging yourself to a boring repetitive office job is the best thing and the future of mankind and everyone wants it and needs it, they must, they must, its the advancement, the future, the perfected civilised human etc.

I think its just self-interest that keeps them going. People would rather be bored, safe and fat than not, which is precisely why people invented the "Noble Savage" myth, or go hunting, or play video games, or do any other approximation of a rough and tumble fantasy life with their bourgeois spare time. Even so, I would still say that the majority of people would prefer to work than be paid to sit at home. Most people just complain that their work isn't interesting or fulfilling enough.

which is why they cant help the aboriginals in australia - they must be denied that lifestyle for fear of the message it would send the working class whites.

the poor are only fit for social engineering into working class, anything else is unacceptable, if the poor dont want that then they have mental health problems.

The difficultly of adapting the aboriginal lifestyle to modern working life (and typically the lowest orders of the working class are the only ones offered to them) is a unique problem that has yet to be solved, and so far everything that has been attempted has produced even worse outcomes than similar programs do for the rest of the poor population. The only exceptions are individuals who are talented enough to escape the entire system right past the working class, obtain an education, and become a lawyer or something. Or, in Canada, a hockey player.

The remainder of the poor only exist as a problem to be solved. You are absolutely right, the goal of society is to turn them into good little workers, or hope they die off. People can't be bothered to care which, so they certainly can't be bothered to think of any better way of addressing the problem. They are a bipartisan inconvenience, disproving both capitalist and socialist utopianism.

europes screwed up to its eyeballs in unfunded obligations and debt, i dont really believe the previous twenty years of living off the fat is going to be relevant to the skin and bones future

having said that, their is all sorts of middle ground in this, im not hyper extremist and if you remember my stance, its that bugger all of my tax money actually makes it out as social services.. my beef is with the public service that studies and manipulates us and with corporate welfare more than it is safety nets.

and quite bluntly i work alot harder than i want to and am damn sick of every extra dollar i manage to scrape up being spent on some assholes wages to play with my life...

in my world of paying for a house thats absurdly more expensive than any time in history and interest rates being absurdly low so saving doesnt work im not living like a civilised creature with safety nets, im not even living like a dog who has bones buried against a rainy day, its pre higher mammal.. i live day to day and am expected to make up the difference with credit that leaves me even more of a debt slave.

id only pay attention to the lefty crap about safety nets if they existed for me - they dont.. the moment i lose my job i lose my house and im on the street and starving.

if i manage to get on the priority list for emergency housing i might only have to spend 6 months on the street living out of rubbish bins.. this is the truth of my world because all my tax money goes to cushy conditions for the government workers and corporate welfare.

how many people in america have lost their houses and are living in tents l?

this tells me the truth about the "social safety net" that our massive taxes dont actually provide..

----

back to the working poor and if they would work as hard as they do if middle class wasnt enforced, i think not.

many working guys dont have hobbies and dont get on with the missus and quite gladly spend all their time at work however most of them in my experience would only work on an adhoc basis when they needed the cash if they could get away with it... they are kept as debt slaves to fund the government rent seekers

70's australia was pretty much like that - the ultra poor setup sh*tshacks away from the burbs and the working poor could live in slightly better modest housing on the edge of the burbs... far less taxes than now and they lived better than they do currently.

the sh*tshacks are now illegal for both left and right wing reasons and the baby boomer gentrification has upgraded all the housing to a point most lower working class can not afford them.

Thank you Very Much for your post, noddy.

id only pay attention to the lefty crap about safety nets if they existed for me - they dont.. the moment i lose my job i lose my house and im on the street and starving.

Yikes.......

Future Fallout aside, sounds like you might be better off in Alaska....... State pays you about $1000 per year just for living there plus you could hunt & fish...........

Or maybe better Florida....... AIUI homes can be pretty cheap........ There are hurricanes but again AIUI you can hunt & fish.......

Best to check with Marcus & DOU first though...... Cold and expensive..... vs. Gusts and Gators....

Things aren't that bad here yet.....

We do have homeless in the park but between the churches, "God's Pantry", and the welfare, they don't usually starve where I live.......

Do the Churches in Oz do any good work in this world...............

[monster_gardener]

Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.

That may be true in some places, I'm not sure, but I've been to Chennai and Bangalore for work and there were naked people walking around all over. Even non-untouchable males were not shy about lifting up their clothes and exposing themselves to scratch, or pissing in the street.

Sounds like the scene outside a North American or British nightclub, circa 2am.


Anyway India has tons of real problems aside from public urination, but they do have multi-party democracy figured out.

I wasn't making a value judgment. I like Indian society, though its collision with western economic materialism (in its capitalist and socialist forms) seems to be a total disaster so far. Filthy naked sadhus don't bother me, though the amount of trash and pollution makes an American dump seem like the Ritz Carlton.

My only point in mentioning India is was to point out their mulit-party political process, I could have grabbed any country with the same setup, I was just looking for a non-European example for novelty. My intent was not to debate Indian culture, which I personally like.

But India actually highlights something else which is on-topic, and that is that India is a country that is, as a whole, increasingly powerful and wealthy, but in an individual basis the average Indian is poor and lives in sometimes truly awful conditions. This is also true to some extent of China, Brazil, etc. What is interesting for our purposes is that this is also a potential future for the US and its citizens, and indeed it could be argued that you are well on your way already.

Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.

My only point in mentioning India is was to point out their mulit-party political process, I could have grabbed any country with the same setup, I was just looking for a non-European example for novelty. My intent was not to debate Indian culture, which I personally like.

Naw..... You picked a bad example and Juggernaut trashed it which left you down in the dumps ........

[noddy]

Do the Churches in Oz do any good work in this world...............

ill rant on this again one day in the aus pacific forum - quick answer is that private families and the church still do most of the welfare here but they are overwhelmed already and its getting worse.

its the "many" that have middle class gaming the system to setup rent seeker positions against the poor "ones" trying to survive.

[Nonc Hilaire]

No, voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote without a run off system, which we do not have.

Socrates thought it was justice for him to drink the hemlock because he had tacitly accepted the authority of the system which imposed that sentence upon him.

Voting for a third party or write in candidate stands as a rejection of politics as they are. If you vote for the system, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to it.

Not a waste of vote, but a rejection of its validity.

[Enki]

No, voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote without a run off system, which we do not have.

Socrates thought it was justice for him to drink the hemlock because he had tacitly accepted the authority of the system which imposed that sentence upon him.

Voting for a third party or write in candidate stands as a rejection of politics as they are. If you vote for the system, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to it.

Not a waste of vote, but a rejection of its validity.

Third party candidates cannot get large amounts of the vote if people don't vote for them and build up their numbers when they are small.

Anyway, it looks like Mr. Perfect has successfully destroyed this thread. I'll stop posting in it since the argument before was already pretty poisoned by Taboo's hystrionic OMG ENKI IS GOING TO RAPE ME!!! nonsense.

[Mr. Perfect]

No, voting for a 3rd party is a waste of a vote without a run off system, which we do not have.

Socrates thought it was justice for him to drink the hemlock because he had tacitly accepted the authority of the system which imposed that sentence upon him.

Voting for a third party or write in candidate stands as a rejection of politics as they are.

If a bee sings an opera in the forest and no one hears it did the bee really sing?

If you vote for the system, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to it.

Not a waste of vote, but a rejection of its validity.

People have been rejecting the system for as long as there has been a system and yet we still have a system.

[Mr. Perfect]

Third party candidates cannot get large amounts of the vote if people don't vote for them and build up their numbers when they are small.

I invite you to vote 3rd party the rest of your natural born days.

Anyway, it looks like Mr. Perfect has successfully destroyed this thread.

Nah, it was when you pulled an Akin and compared freedom with rape. That did it right there.

[Ibrahim]

feh, the right makes some noises about individual choices and small business and thusly gets my vote most of them time but the way they treat those like gary johnson (american example) pretty much shows the truth in the noise,

This is exactly my point about American politics. The two-party system causes political stagnation. It happens everywhere, but multi-party systems allow new parties to form and ossified ones to fall when events really merit it. Both US parties need a real shake-up, but there is nowhere for that to come from and no 3rd party is even viable. The Libertrian and Green candidates being excluded from the debates is an example of this in practice. People voting 3rd party look at it as a noble protest, not a vote for something viable, and that's a shame.

good luck getting the corporates off the industry standards boards... good luck setting up alternatives to the existing power players and their international corporatist agendas.. good luck challenging the middle class rules on housing and transport standards that make life so hard for the struggling ones.

Just so. Power naturally wants to entrench itself, people naturally want to grease the wheels for their friends. Without a mechanism for real overturn of the elites coming from the electoral system it really limits future options. People start to talk about trashing the whole system, with good reason.

much the same as the "social safety net" noises of the left actually... the reality is that the money goes into government wages and the "service" thats provided to the poor is about as useful as the corporate "customer care" service.. dont fix anything or change anything but they care....oh they care, infact they care so much they need more staff and better wages to care even more ...

Bloat and waste are as inevitable as the tides, but then again if I were down on my luck I'd rather be in a place with an effective social safety net than not. If, as you describe, there would be nothing in place to help you should you need it, then that is a reason to be angry at the government that pledged to provide it, and levies taxes for that purpose. If the government said up front that it wasn't going to do f*ck all for you then that would be one thing, but if they charge for the service then provide the service.

I maintain that, should one go broke, they would rather do so in a state with an effective social safety net. Be penniless in Denmark, not China. The better advice is don't be penniless, but things happen.

[monster_gardener]

when it comes to oppressing the poor its the government in collusion with the middle class of both left and right wing flavours.

Absolutely. Below a certain threshold the poor cease to be people. Different economic classes can fight over their share of the bill, working class and middle class and the wealthy. But the poor annoy all of them and are looked down on by all of them. Plus they disproportionately suffer from mental illness and addiction, so the prospect of doing anything substantial to help them is very off-putting from a financial and return-no-investment point of view. So everybody above the cutoff is equally responsible, assuming you believe that anyone is responsible at all.

Worth noting that while the poor do better in systems with socialized medical care than they do without, they are still woefully neglected in those states as well.

socialised healthcare does mean better statistics in some cases - not all - because many of the crustier people just flat out ignore the system.

True. But others have access to medications such as anti-psychotics, and can then start using the stepladder of group homes and social assistance to find their way to a permanent residence or employment. What is interesting about all of that is that it takes place largely ignored by the public, and if you were to poll people on it a majority of them would probably oppose the whole thing as an over-expensive waste of time. So even when you win you lose, in terms of public perception.

the truth of it is that without all these rules that enforce the middle class, a large percentage of the white working class would join the tropical aborigines in the master plan of sitting by the beach and fishing your daily meal and then spending your meagre dollars on piss n smokes... when you run out of space you have a little war and get the numbers back down again, just like all the tropical groups do.

I wonder about that. When you start to address the supposedly widespread permanent welfare class of subsidized smokers and TV watchers then the public opinion on social programs really crashes, but its hard to imagine that this is actually the problem people say it is. Does the existence of these programs encourage people to give up on work or ambition? In any case the countries that have comprehensive social safety nets are nicer in every conceivable way than those that don't. Its much easier to be unemployed in Denmark than America, and that doesn't seem to make America any nicer due to the supposedly coercive and work-encouraging approach of a deficient social safety net. Whatever numbers might say about America being the richest nation on Earth, anybody with a passport knows that %99 of the US is a total dump compared to any socialized Western European hellhole. Maybe not Scotland.

the upper middle class dream of it aswell, hence noble savage myths - however they have intellectualised their way out of it through constant reinforcement of why dragging yourself to a boring repetitive office job is the best thing and the future of mankind and everyone wants it and needs it, they must, they must, its the advancement, the future, the perfected civilised human etc.

I think its just self-interest that keeps them going. People would rather be bored, safe and fat than not, which is precisely why people invented the "Noble Savage" myth, or go hunting, or play video games, or do any other approximation of a rough and tumble fantasy life with their bourgeois spare time. Even so, I would still say that the majority of people would prefer to work than be paid to sit at home. Most people just complain that their work isn't interesting or fulfilling enough.

which is why they cant help the aboriginals in australia - they must be denied that lifestyle for fear of the message it would send the working class whites.

the poor are only fit for social engineering into working class, anything else is unacceptable, if the poor dont want that then they have mental health problems.

The difficultly of adapting the aboriginal lifestyle to modern working life (and typically the lowest orders of the working class are the only ones offered to them) is a unique problem that has yet to be solved, and so far everything that has been attempted has produced even worse outcomes than similar programs do for the rest of the poor population. The only exceptions are individuals who are talented enough to escape the entire system right past the working class, obtain an education, and become a lawyer or something. Or, in Canada, a hockey player.

The remainder of the poor only exist as a problem to be solved. You are absolutely right, the goal of society is to turn them into good little workers, or hope they die off. People can't be bothered to care which, so they certainly can't be bothered to think of any better way of addressing the problem. They are a bipartisan inconvenience, disproving both capitalist and socialist utopianism.

Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.

anybody with a passport knows that %99 of the US is a total dump compared to any socialized Western European hellhole.

Seems you are Doubling Down on Dissing America........99% Last time it was 90%.....

Again interesting that you choose to live next to a dump when you could live in Wonderful Islamic Scenic Historic Turkey........

Or is it??...... Or Could you?

Wondering why you are in North America since you seem to despise so much of it..... even significant parts of Canada......

Also seems you are being careful to exclude the Southern Euro PIIGS........

My guess is that Socialist Grease oops I mean Greece at least would make your lying insults slip, slide and fall down on their pompous posterior........

But even in Western Europe what about the places like in France where the Muslim youths burn cars and the police go only in force......

Or in Holland where a Muslim thug will cut your throat for what you say if you don't get shot by one of his "progressive" allies........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_G ... %29#Murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn#Assassination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf

Or Malmo in Socialist Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemiti ... Malm.C3.B6

I suspect that some parts of Western Europe may be not only Dumps but Dumps with Dangerous Denizens....

Desert Killer Apes or Other Killer Apes Infected with that Damned Desert Delerium Meme.......

[noddy]

Bloat and waste are as inevitable as the tides, but then again if I were down on my luck I'd rather be in a place with an effective social safety net than not. If, as you describe, there would be nothing in place to help you should you need it, then that is a reason to be angry at the government that pledged to provide it, and levies taxes for that purpose. If the government said up front that it wasn't going to do f*ck all for you then that would be one thing, but if they charge for the service then provide the service.

what im hearing out of northern socialist europe about immigrants and how their social safety net is working outside of their cosy small town homogenity leaves me suspicious of how thats going to pan out as they get higher levels of diversity ala cananda/australia/america

so we will have to wait and see and but i dont consider them relevant models - everythings easier to agree on in smaller and more homogenous groupings.

canada like australia has had a dream run over the last few decades due to primary industry exports, it has allowed all sorts of expensive things to be funded and expectations are very high... im not sure if the downturn is hitting you like it is us yet but things are pretty grim in australia of late and not looking like getting better... we only had mining exports to china and they have started going backwards, we have very little else to offer the world, farming may pick up some of the slack but not to the same level.

as for your belief that the mission statement should make a difference, im not that into symbols and tend to focus on outcomes - if the outcome is that i dont get a strong safety net then i dont want to pay for it...

anyone that convinces me they will provide a solid safety net will surely get my money or effort.

horses and carts.. i dont scream at the useless and expect them to become useful.

[Ibrahim]

Bloat and waste are as inevitable as the tides, but then again if I were down on my luck I'd rather be in a place with an effective social safety net than not. If, as you describe, there would be nothing in place to help you should you need it, then that is a reason to be angry at the government that pledged to provide it, and levies taxes for that purpose. If the government said up front that it wasn't going to do f*ck all for you then that would be one thing, but if they charge for the service then provide the service.

what im hearing out of northern socialist europe about immigrants and how their social safety net is working outside of their cosy small town homogenity leaves me suspicious of how thats going to pan out as they approach australian or american levels of diversity.

so we will have to wait and see and but i dont consider them relevant models - everythings easier to agree on in smaller and more homogenous groupings.

canada like australia has had a dream run over the last few decades due to primary industry exports, it has allowed all sorts of expensive things to be funded and expectations are very high... im not sure if the downturn is hitting you like it is us yet but things are pretty grim in australia of late and not looking like getting better... we only had mining exports to china and they have started going backwards, we have very little else to offer the world, farming may pick up some of the slack but not to the same level.

as for your belief that the mission statement should make a difference, im not that into symbols and tend to focus on outcomes - if the outcome is that i dont get a strong safety net then i dont want to pay for it...

anyone that convinces me they will provide a solid safety net will surely get my money or effort.

horses and carts.. i dont scream at the useless and expect them to become useful.

Canada has a load of oil, and the extraction process of the "tar sands" only becomes more profitable as the price of oil rockets upwards, so we're set up to be a little arctic oil sheikdom, a bit like Norway but slightly less white as we take in more immigrants. So its not a model for everyone but I'm not sure what the alternative really is.

If its all talk in your country today then the focus needs to be on making it a reality. An economic downturn increases the likelihood of this outcome over the long term. Enough poverty combined with cruelty from the mobied elites turned Russian peasants into Marxists, shouldn't take that much to turn Aussies or Americans into socialists who demand a basic level of care in the wealthiest societies in history.

[Mr. Perfect]

TBH nods Ibs is whistling in the graveyard, his "government will fix it" model is more than half a century old and going bankrupt around the world.

I'm going to be honest with you, if you are not already in a privileged class so to speak you will have to learn subsistence living or learn to trade the capital markets. I'll show you how if you are interested.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

The reaction of people to the damage in New York shows what is wrong with the world, and also what is wrong with Mr. Perfect's naive hope. Everyone is appalled that someone, somewhere didn't prevent all this from happening. Nevermind that a ridiculously gigantic genuflecting storm just smashed into our most densely populated metropolitan area, if "they" were doing their jobs, I wouldn't have had my iPhone service interrupted. Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are. When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Sandy was a huge storm that smashed into a settlement of several million humans. This situation involves suffering. Tomorrow, something else will happen that causes suffering. And the next day after that. The operative mode of a huge number of people today is that the government's work is never done as long as there is one person suffering, but this naive and idiotic idea has done nothing but add to wrong side of the ledger.

[noddy]

how scared are (many/most/some)* people of going up to the opposite sex and asking em out.. vomit worthy scared.

says alot about humans as rational actors with risk factor value judgements.

* buahaha, my own little joke on broadbrushes.

[Mr. Perfect]

There may be something to the whole Darwin thing. This could be all one giant culling. Can't fight science I guess.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'll tell you an issue we're dealing with.

In the past, say several years ago and beyond, if we knew (broadbrush language) about someone in trouble, say substance issues, a shut in, ability to hold down a job, troubled marriage, etc it was common to have everyone throw their hands up and pitch in, almost get into a drama cycle over it.

Nowadays it seems like people look the other way. I honestly think it is not a selfish indifference ie "sucks to be them/not my problem" but more "that person is going to take me down with them" or "that person will waste whatever I invest in them/I have more worthy expenditures of my effort" and tbh it sort of feels like the right thing to do.

I can't tell you if it is the economy, political mood, or culture is morphing past the Oprah/Dr. Phil stages into new territory, as concepts like enabling and co-dependency begin to take root and mature.

Whatever it is it is slightly scary because again it is an admission that there are things beyond our control, ie people and their fates.

[monster_gardener]

I'll tell you an issue we're dealing with.

In the past, say several years ago and beyond, if we knew (broadbrush language) about someone in trouble, say substance issues, a shut in, ability to hold down a job, troubled marriage, etc it was common to have everyone throw their hands up and pitch in, almost get into a drama cycle over it.

Nowadays it seems like people look the other way. I honestly think it is not a selfish indifference ie "sucks to be them/not my problem" but more "that person is going to take me down with them" or "that person will waste whatever I invest in them/I have more worthy expenditures of my effort" and tbh it sort of feels like the right thing to do.

I can't tell you if it is the economy, political mood, or culture is morphing past the Oprah/Dr. Phil stages into new territory, as concepts like enabling and co-dependency begin to take root and mature.

Whatever it is it is slightly scary because again it is an admission that there are things beyond our control, ie people and their fates.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Since at least the time of the Good Samaritan, trying to help someone can be one of the most difficult, dangerous & frustrating things that one can try to do.

People often want help the way they want it, when they want, it on their schedule........

If you help someone, be ready that it may cost some of your blood.......... Maybe all of it.........

Often easier to help stray dogs or even cats..........

Believe it may have been Mark Twain who said "The difference between a man and a dog is that if you take in a starving stray dog, feed him and heal him, the dog will usually not turn on you"..........

Not saying we aren't supposed to help but best to have a back up gun and knife on your person and a dual use item like a cane or flashlight in one hand as you pass out bread with the other.........

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Whatever it is it is slightly scary because again it is an admission that there are things beyond our control, ie people and their fates.

They are.

[Ibrahim]

The reaction of people to the damage in New York shows what is wrong with the world, and also what is wrong with Mr. Perfect's naive hope. Everyone is appalled that someone, somewhere didn't prevent all this from happening. Nevermind that a ridiculously gigantic genuflecting storm just smashed into our most densely populated metropolitan area, if "they" were doing their jobs, I wouldn't have had my iPhone service interrupted. Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are. When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Sandy was a huge storm that smashed into a settlement of several million humans. This situation involves suffering. Tomorrow, something else will happen that causes suffering. And the next day after that. The operative mode of a huge number of people today is that the government's work is never done as long as there is one person suffering, but this naive and idiotic idea has done nothing but add to wrong side of the ledger.

Maybe I'm reading the same stuff Tinker is (or Chris Christie's twitter feed) but the Sandy narrative I keep hearing is "the government responded well this time," "New Yorkers pulled together," and "this could have been a lot worse." Other than that the people last to have services restored, or who literally lost their homes, are complaining, but why not? Fair to complain about that.

Insofar as this is generally a discussion about colletive response via government vs. radical individualism I think the disaster once again demonstrates the value of certain government institutions, regardless of the level at which they are organized.

[Ibrahim]

how scared are (many/most/some)* people of going up to the opposite sex and asking em out.. vomit worthy scared.

says alot about humans as rational actors with risk factor value judgements.

* buahaha, my own little joke on broadbrushes.

They say people are more afraid of public speaking than they are of dying, but I see more awkward speeches than I do ritual suicides.

Still, you'll seldom go wrong picking anxiety as the motivation for human behavior.

[YMix]

The reaction of people to the damage in New York shows what is wrong with the world, and also what is wrong with Mr. Perfect's naive hope. Everyone is appalled that someone, somewhere didn't prevent all this from happening. Nevermind that a ridiculously gigantic genuflecting storm just smashed into our most densely populated metropolitan area, if "they" were doing their jobs, I wouldn't have had my iPhone service interrupted. Mr. P, people have a deep, deep need to believe that somebody is in control. Deep as in it goes all the down. It's not just part of who we are, but what we are. When we agitate for less dependence on government, that's what we're up against. So it goes beyond a few policy changes or a rational argument. At this level, you are talking directly to the central nervous system. You can't change people's need to believe that someone is in control. When you try to deprive them of that, most people will hate you for it. You have to give them something else to lean on for support, and don't say "themselves" because they're not interested.

Sandy was a huge storm that smashed into a settlement of several million humans. This situation involves suffering. Tomorrow, something else will happen that causes suffering. And the next day after that. The operative mode of a huge number of people today is that the government's work is never done as long as there is one person suffering, but this naive and idiotic idea has done nothing but add to wrong side of the ledger.

You mean some people are shallow? Gee, I'm amazed.