Toxic Psychology
Sometimes, I start to think that my profession is improving and not quite as PC and ridiculous as I tend to think it is but then I am proven wrong, once again. Yesterday, I thumbed through the April 2007 edition of the The Monitor on Psychology to catch up on what is going on in the field and I learned that the psychologists who profess to be knowledgeable about telling others how to change their cognitive distortions have yet to change their own. They continue to believe they are omnipotent, capable of interfering in political issues that have nothing to do with psychology or stress political correctness and a creeping socialism ahead of an actual knowledge base.
In this most recent issue, I learned from the front cover that America is "toxic" and if you read the article entitled, "Toxic America," you will learn why. Apparently, if you are too wealthy in our society, you will turn into an American who is unhappy and lives a short and lonely existence. The article implies that working long hours and having money is toxic:
What is the answer then, according to the psychological soothesayers? Why socialism, of course!
Yep, we greedy capitalists just need to become more like England and the European Union and we will be all be happy, healthy and non-toxic. Is that science or politics talking?
In this most recent issue, I learned from the front cover that America is "toxic" and if you read the article entitled, "Toxic America," you will learn why. Apparently, if you are too wealthy in our society, you will turn into an American who is unhappy and lives a short and lonely existence. The article implies that working long hours and having money is toxic:
Marmot believes the psychic smog that’s making Americans sick could be composed of two factors. One is that Americans’ long work hours leave us more stressed and less healthy. The other is that Americans may feel friendless and isolated due to social stressors created by our country’s widening income gap. In turn, that societal divisiveness may be bad for our health—not just poor people’s health, but everyone’s, he speculates.
What is the answer then, according to the psychological soothesayers? Why socialism, of course!
“We’re almost like a nomadic society on this treadmill, hoping that we’ll either strike it rich with the lottery, or that if we work hard enough, somehow we’ll become Google millionaires,” he comments.
The way America deals with social building blocks such as health care, education and pensions compounds the problem, Hedge believes.
In England, for example, a university education costs about $3,000 a year, and everyone has access to adequate health insurance. British citizens must retire at age 65, with many companies encouraging earlier retirement, and they receive both a government and employer pension.
“And it’s not linked to stock-market performance—your 401K doesn’t evaporate because of the dirty dealings of an Enron!” he says.
By contrast, many Americans angst over how they can possibly make enough to cover insurance and other basics, while saving enough for retirement. In 2005, for instance, the average cost of a year at a private American college or university was $21,235, with some private institutions costing double that amount, statistics show.
Yep, we greedy capitalists just need to become more like England and the European Union and we will be all be happy, healthy and non-toxic. Is that science or politics talking?
Labels: political correctness
posted by Helen at 12:47 PM
72 Comments:
Everyone in America should read Toxic America. It made me happy. Unless my laughter tinged with subconscious sadness because of the income gap. Or the death of a baby seal.
I'd certainly be much happier if we got some psychologists to redesign America from the top down. God knows these things shouldn't be left to amateurs.
I love that - we should be more like England, where the rates of alcoholism and general misery seem to be skyrocketing in spite of all their great socialist programs.
If people feel friendless and isolated, they should take steps to go out and find ways to connect with other people. This has nothing to do with income, and everything to do with making time for the things you find important.
As a resident of the earthly paradise known as Britain, let me pick up on a couple of points:
"everyone has access to adequate health insurance."
No, very few people have access to health insurance. What they have access to is the National Health Service, which is a gargantuan Stalinist bureaucracy that every year kills thousands of its own patients from dirt and general incompetence.
"British citizens must retire at age 65, with many companies encouraging earlier retirement,"
Once upon a time, perhaps. Nowadays the employers are unlikely to encourage early retirement, since their pension schemes have mostly been bankrupted by high taxes.
But hey, the "Monitor" is just looking out for its readers' interests. After all, if America became more like Britain you can guarantee there would be a lot more Americans needing the services of a therapist...
psychic smog
That phrase struck me as the kind of thing a Scientologist would say. What a weird turn of phrase.
as another resident of the good old UK, i have to say quite frankly, rubbish.
i used to work in education, and there used to be student grants, for the poorest of students, but they abolished that, the grant was for £1800, per year but it was split into 3 terms, so they didnt have all the money at once.
now since they stopped that students frequently have debts of £15 - 20,000, this is on top of the top up fees. which in some cases will take over 20 years to pay back, as they have interest on that.
pensions, in a few years there wont be a government pension not after brown, was caught stealing £5 billion a year from pensions to fund his "ideas", there is a pensions black hole, the money disappears due to dirty dealings of the government.
the people in the UK pay about half their income in tax in one form or another to the government, petrol 47% of the price goes to the government, (your looking $8 or $9 a gallon).
the national health, when hospitals are closing, when nurses are being asked to volunteer a day for no pay, when managers earn far more than anyone else.
yes in theory we get free health care, but in reality, its not free, and its not easy.
my mother is 71, and she still works, because she cant afford to quit, my brother is long long term ill 15 years now.
the UK isnt such a paradise, but saying that its far far better than most.
Perhaps the reason the British are sick less often is that they don't get to see doctors to diagnose them as often. Someone who actually gets to see a doctor once in awhile will appear more sick than someone stuck on a waiting list.
And this made me laugh:
To begin to break up this consumeristic malaise that’s poisoning Americans and their children, Levine teaches parents first to spend substantive, nonstressed time with their kids, and then to help them build relationships and become giving members of society—views she’s sharing with sell-out crowds around the country.
I'm guessing she gives these talks for free, no?
In all seriousness, though, the article does make some good points, and I do think that your mental health can affect your physical health. But, so what? Should we legislate adequate leisure/social/family time for people? And while personally I'd like to retire well before I'm 65 if possible, I don't see why that should be forced. Some people (not me!) get a great deal of fulfillment and satisfaction from their jobs and feel useless when not working.
Marmot - isn't that some kind of rodent?
OK, cheap shot. Sorry.
If I want to know what it's like living under Pan-European Social Democratic government, I wouldn't consult an American psychologist; I'd ask a European office weenie - the Euro version of me. It's kind of amusing when (usually wealthy and/or sequestered) Americans go on about how wonderful life is in Europe or Canada or Cuba when they have no direct experience other than as tourists or guests of the El Jefe.
I imagine Europe is neither as grand nor as awful as Americans variously depict it. Europeans get by, just like everyone does, either because of or in spite of their governments. At the moment, I'd love to visit Britain but I wouldn't want to get sick there.
I also note that most of the immigrants I know didn't come to the States to get free health care and live off the dole. If they'd wanted that, they'd have moved to France and become "youths," as the papers like to call them.
Can anyone name an example of socialism that actually worked? Even one that looked like it was working for more than a very few years?
Yeah, me either.
"Some people (not me!) get a great deal of fulfillment and satisfaction from their jobs and feel useless when not working."
My mother worked as a medical technologist for more than 20 years. Three years ago, at the age of 53, she went back to school to become a Physician's Assistant (this is like a Nurse Practitioner).
She got an enormous amount of fulfillment from her previous career, and gets even more from her new one. It would be downright cruel to force this woman to quit working at 65.
--Tsiroth
Peregrine:
Sweden is the usual response to that question.
Personally, I object to socialism not just on utilitarian but on moral/ideological grounds, but I believe Sweden is the "hard case" that anti-socialists have to be prepared to address.
Someone better educated than I am can probably give a more informative response.
-- Tsiroth
Regarding Sweden, I'd have to ask why democratic socialism works well there but not as well in other parts of Europe. Same as I'd have to ask why democratic capitalism works well in the States but not as well in other parts of the world. What do these states have or do that allows them to succeed where others fail - or at least achieve less than the hoped-for results?
Seems like you'd have to say that neither socialism nor capitalism is "The Answer." They both work well under certain conditions but not under others. Question is, under what conditions can each be adopted to yield the best results?
I think that's where the "religious" aspect of political belief does us great harm. Political true believers latch onto one system or the other, expecting it to bring about the ultimate good. They apply the system to their societies as an act of faith, not as a practical adaptation to circumstances. And they don't usually care how much trouble they cause in the process.
anonymous 4:24 & bugs-
Sweden and the other successful "social democrat" countries aren't really socialist. Ludwig von Mises, one of the fathers of the Austrian School of Economics, referred to them as "hampered market" economies. They are market economies, they are just severely hampered by high tax rates, heavy regulation, etc. There is a lot of central planning, but it doesn't reach the level of socialism. There is still capital in private hands. There is still a private economy. The government doesn't control the means of production.
Theoretically their economies would rocket ahead if they cut taxes and spending and cut down on regulation. (Although most social democrats don't believe this.)
Note that the US is becoming more like the "social democrat" countries. When taxation*, spending, and regulation is increased the private economy becomes more and more hampered, as Mises put it. Since the private economy is the only engine that can create wealth and raise living standards (the government is parasitic on the private economy), this hampering results in the destruction of societal wealth and the lowering of living standards if it gets bad enough.
* Note that "taxation" includes the hidden tax of inflation.
Sweden is the usual response to that question.
That they have higher suicide rates says something about the general level of contentment of their public.
One could expect that "toxic" America with all its evils and ready access to firearms would have people offing themselves at much higher rates.
This is not the case though.
purple avenger-
That they have higher suicide rates says something about the general level of contentment of their public.
One could expect that "toxic" America with all its evils and ready access to firearms would have people offing themselves at much higher rates.
This is not the case though.
That correlation doesn't necessarily follow, part of this is probably due to climate. Sweden is pretty far north so the amount of sunlight they get, especially in the winter, plays a part. A large portion of the US gets more sunlight than Sweden.
When I start feeling suicidal I just think about shooting Swedes. Cheers me right up.
Those interested in the swedish socialism question can wander through TCSDaily, which covers European economy essays all the time. The "hampered market" idea is essentially sound. The Scandinavian countries have also been thoroughly homogenous until recently, which is always an advantage in getting people to give things up for the good of the group. That advantage is eroding recently.
As to psychic smog, I love the leap in logic: what causes this? we don't know, but we might guess that it's all the things we reflexively dislike about other people who are richer than us.
As the Great Psychologist Jesus said: "How can you see the splinter in your brother's eye when you yourself have a plank in your own eye? First remove the plank, and then you will be able to see your brother's splinter clearly."
But knowing something, and DOING it, are two different matters. Anyway, I've always felt that many or most shrinks get into the business as a way of dealing with their own issues - without actually dealing with them.
How many psychologists got into the field as a self help project?
Psychic smog? How could a smog read other people's minds when it doesn't have one itself?
Like ministers, psychologists have high opinions of themselves and commit serial pratfalls to prove it. Who in their right mind (intended) would trust salvation to one, or sanity to the other? Neurotics of both types peddle dependency and self-doubt as their stock-in-trade, leaching away anything in conflict with abnegation and denial.
Of course these creeps, with rare exceptions, are collectivist Statists --"socialistic"-- to the core. Parasitic by very nature, they feed off the 95% of any population that wants something for nothing, and wants it now. The remaining 5% of us sequester assets, foster descendents, consign the dumpster-divers to their fates, and go our ways.
Mentally and spiritually inert, society's standard-issue 95% see value for value received on their conniptions. Meantime, in-group tapeworms on the body politic wax greasy, turgid, all for Socialism as she is writ.
Kirk Parker said: "psychic smog" Diagnosis-by-metaphor? Wow, how very scientific!
Heh. And the noxious fumes spewing forth from the likes of "epidemiologist Sir Michael Marmot, PhD, of University College London Medical School and his colleagues" constitute the "greenhouse gases" creating that "psychic smog."
I get the sense Marmot is just an tiny bit bitter over the fact he's not one of those Google millionaires. That the world would value easier access to information over his mud caked call for social psychotherapy must truely offend him.
Anyone with "psych" anything in their job description should not be trusted.
Anon asked: "How many psychologists got into the field as a self help project?" Good question, I wish I knew the answer. Three classic motivations for becoming a psychologist are to help, to know, or to be around people who are sick and make you feel better about yourself.
When I started, I really wanted to help. I still do! But the motivation of wanting to know, being curious, has risen over the years.
As for trusting us, I do not tell people what to do very often. I do suggest that they consider trying some approaches that have helped other people, but we always have a discussion about NEVER doing anything that I suggest that doesn't sound good to them.
My expertise is in knowing how people might change, not in knowing what they need to do or who they need to be. I am just on the road to find out with them, not for them.
Trey
Can anyone name an example of unfettered capitalism that actually worked? Even one that looked like it was working for more than a very few years?
Yeah, me either.
Anybody seen an example of unfettered capitalism that didn't get fettered up pretty damn' quick?
Yeah. Me either.
Whenever I read one of these "Europe is so cool and Americans are like so totally bogus" articles, I am always reminded of Whit Stillman's movie Barcelona.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0109219/
That movie contains the perfectly distilled America hating European rant:
Marta: Ramon is very persuasive, and he painted a terrible picture of what it would be like for her to live the rest of her life in America, with all of its crime, consumerism, and vulgarity. All those loud, badly dressed, fat people watching their eighty channels of television and visiting shopping malls. The plastic throw-everything-away society with its notorious violence and racism. And finally, the total lack of culture.
And, of course, the movie also has this:
Woman: You can't say Americans are not more violent than other people.
Fred: No.
Woman: All those people killed in shootings in America?
Fred: Oh, shootings, yes. But that doesn't mean Americans are more violent than other people. We're just better shots.
Anon -
Ever heard of eBay?
That is capitalism in its purest form. And as long as those who would commit fraud are kept out of the loop, it works quite well.
Now, can you name for me any instance of socialism or communism that didn't devolve into either genocidal despotism or demographic irrelevance?
ObTopic: Leftists project everything they feel on everyone around them. Leftist psychologists proclaim everything they dislike to be a mental disorder. Does it surprise anyone that a leftist psychologist would turn his natural hatred for capitalism into a mental disorder for those he determines to have been "left out"?
Seriously, this overdiagnosis crap needs to stop. Most Americans, when asked how they are faring will reply with some variation on "I'm fine, but I'm really worried about my neighbor". And that's how memes are born.
I have known many people in the therapy business: psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and marriage and family counselors. At no time have I ever had the impression that they were, in general, people of superior discernment, or less prone to acting out their ideologies than anyone else.
I know of a child who was taken from home and institutionalized because a psychiatrist was concerned about her "liability" (that's a direct quote!). I once had a conversation with a psychiatrist who seemed pleasant and genial, until he turned cold and vicious when someone dared suggest that a particular medication had serious side effects. I know a psychologist who bragged about her wonderful therapy group, then recoiled in terror from someone who was angry and looking for help, because she couldn't deal with anger.
Don't get me wrong: A few of these folks are wonderful people and exceptionally capable. However, the average mental-health worker is, well, about average. He may have mastered a particular set of facts, but facts alone don't ensure good judgment, especially in areas outside of his expertise.
brian-
That is capitalism in its purest form. And as long as those who would commit fraud are kept out of the loop, it works quite well.
If you're claiming a system is "true capitalism", you better make sure your identification of "those who would commit fraud" is accurate and not run on false claims of fraud. Perhaps someone is making false claims of fraud for anti-competitive reasons. Perhaps it is because someone wants to sabotage someone else's market participation for personal reasons. Perhaps someone wants to sell a bogus "fraud detector" and doesn't want to admit it is wrong.
In any case a "free market" is one free of fraud and coercion. And the term "fraud" includes false claims of fraud against innocent people. Or coercing innocent people out of the market based on false claims of fraud. (Another bonus might be keeping the false claims of fraud from the victims by keeping them out of the "loop", which is compund fraud.)
anonymous 11:35pm-
Can anyone name an example of unfettered capitalism that actually worked? Even one that looked like it was working for more than a very few years?
Hong Kong works pretty well. It's been so successful that the communist Chinese government decided not to mess with it when it reverted back to them.
some information about him, i know its wiki,but..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Marmot
talking about pure socialism, or communism, it idea is always there, as can be seen in several tv shows, if you look deeper you will see star trek has a more socialism, communism streak, no one need earn money, its all there, free food, free clothes, they dont even get paid. and they are touted as being higher beings, whereas the ferengi are pure capitalists, and they are short, money grabbing, being that will do anything for money.
ok these are just tv shows, but the idea that soicalism/communism is a universal panacea, is pervasive, the poor down trodden masses, want to be at the same level as the leaders, and so they wont be bullied expected to die or starve. so the idea of universal peace through socialism, is a powerful myth, especially now we dont have the skills to feed ourselves we have to rely on others, which brings specialisation into the market, farmers farm, bakers bake, and its easier to go to the shop to buy, rather than grow your own, bake your own.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/epidemiology/staff/marmotm.htm
this is from the university he works at.
Here's an interesting article about Sweden:
http://www.thelocal.se/6804/20070326/
It compares the median wealth of a Swede with an American (2x wealthier) and an Italian (6x wealthier). In fact, 80% of Swedes have 0 or negative assets beyond their house.
Wealth is distributed less evenly in Sweden than in America, mainly because of stock ownership.
How about other forms of toxicity that they won't even begin to touch on like having a toxic spouse, toxic family or a job that you hate no matter how much or little it pays? I think that a lot of men, and a good number of men could relate to much of that. If anything, being rich might alleviate some of that toxicity...
Neighbours from hell to be housed in 'sin bins'
11.04.07
Add your view
Blitz: Home Secretary John Reid
Disruptive families in London will be put in "sin bins" to curb their antisocial behaviour.
They are to be moved from their homes into residential units to be supervised round the clock by staff living with them.
The tough action is aimed at reducing the misery caused by "neighbours from hell" and should also cut the cost to the taxpayer of dealing with them.
Many will be placed under curfew and banned from having late-night or other unsuitable visitors. Others will be required to undergo drug or alcohol dependency treatment.
Parents thought to need slightly less intensive action will be monitored in their own homes but forced to abide by contracts stipulating what they and their children must do.
Newham, Camden, Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster councils have signed up to the £15million scheme which is part of Home Secretary John Reid's "respect" action plan.
Newham will set up the capital's first permanently staffed sin bin, while the other six authorities will use "managed" properties to supervise problem families after moving them out of their homes.
None of the families dealt with under the scheme will be legally compelled to take part, but will instead be asked to do so to avoid permanent eviction, prosecution for offences triggered by their conduct or the removal of their children into care.
The scheme has been prompted by concern that existing, less hardline, methods have failed to curb the activities of a minority of disruptive families. Critics are likely to question the extent of state intrusion into the lives of families and to raise doubts about whether the "tough love" approach can work.
But Louise Casey, the Government's "respect czar", said: "This is about tackling a minority of feckless and disruptive families who make life hell for their neighbours and the community around them and telling them that enough is enough."
Researchers estimate that problem families can cost the taxpayer between £250,000 and £350,000 a year through the bill for tackling the crime and social problems they cause. By contrast, the cost of a place in one of the new sin bins is estimated to be about £15,000 a year.
If you don't want to be miserable start by not hanging around miserable people. For example, if most people in your social circle are frequently verbalizing how awful it is that "so many people lack access to health insurance" you will feel awful.
The problem with miserable people is that their philosophy is that the key to happiness is the elimination of misery. This is untrue. When you "count your blessings" a feeling contentedness descends on you. If people are unhappy and wealthy it is usually because they think they would only be happy with more.
When critics say materialism is the problem and the solution is another form of materialism (redistribution) they are approachin gthe problem the wrong way.
"Americans’ long work hours leave us more stressed and less healthy"...this shows an amazing lack of historical perspective, when you consider what the work hours have been for most people throughout history.
Somebody who worked in a steel mill circa 1900 would have looked at the "long work hours" of present-day Americans as a pretty cushy deal.
The rich here may be miserable, but that really doesn't answer why they tend to live longer than the poor do. A lot longer. Yes, there is also a fairly high correlation between (esp. healthy) longevity and education level - but that is also fairly highly correlated with income.
I've dealt with quite a few psych* practitioners over my long career as a depressive. Of them all, I only count two as decent, healthy, sane, helpful individuals. Several others were clueless, and two were downright toxic.
Of course, I haven't had very many good bosses, either. I guess it's just another manifestation of Sturgeon's Law: nine tenths of everything is crud.
*snort*
eBay and Hong Kong...two great examples - thanks a lot, guys.
Unfettered capitalism is just as dangerous, if not more, than unfettered socialism. Both are doomed to failure. Almost every government on the planet uses a mixed economy, the U.S. included.
There are very few, if any, hard-core socialists left, but for some reason, this Ayn Rand unfettered capitalism everybody's-self-sufficient myth refuses to die on the right - and that's just another example of the right's faith-based mindset; not just in matters of faith, but economics, public and foreign policy.
Lots of ragging on flakey psychologists. Dr. Helen, obviously is the exception...
anonymous 12:08-
eBay and Hong Kong...two great examples - thanks a lot, guys.
So what's wrong with Honk Kong? (Note that they aren't pure capitalism, but they rank pretty high on the economic freedom index.)
Unfettered capitalism is just as dangerous, if not more, than unfettered socialism. Both are doomed to failure. Almost every government on the planet uses a mixed economy, the U.S. included.
Provided there is a system in place to protect individual rights, environmental offenses, etc. why is laissez faire capitalism "doomed to failure"?
There are very few, if any, hard-core socialists left, but for some reason, this Ayn Rand unfettered capitalism everybody's-self-sufficient myth refuses to die on the right - and that's just another example of the right's faith-based mindset; not just in matters of faith, but economics, public and foreign policy.
There are lots of socialists left, they just come across as big government types, redistributionists, collectivists, etc. And support for markets isn't only from the right. Libertarianism, which is on a seperate axis, supports markets as well. Also, there is much empirical and anecdotal support for free market capitalism, care to support your contention that support for it is "faith-based"?
Correction: Should be "Hong Kong", not "Honk Kong" above.
btesh-
Sheesh. What is the public reaction to programs like this over there?
I am friendless, isolated and miserable. Living in Europe wouldn't change that. It's a lifestyle, not a pathology.
Bugs,
You really break my heart! You really seem to have a great sense of humor and a lot of wit etc. If you are indeed friendless, isolated and miserable, it must be by choice, as I bet there are people who would appreciate you if you let them.
Sheesh, bugs, you've got to be kidding. I search this blog looking for your posts. Your one liners crack me up! I love your sense of humor, and the way you look at things. You are one of the regular folks that come in here that I love to read, one of the regulars that keep me coming back in the hopes of reading something they have to say.
Personally, I really don't care if I never go to Europe. I DO love to travel our own country, though.
Rats. That last post of yours was actually your sense of humor at work and at play again, wasn't it?
Reeled me right in, bugs.
Pay no attention. I get this way when I'm off my meds.
Provided there is a system in place to protect individual rights, environmental offenses, etc. why is laissez faire capitalism "doomed to failure"?
I'm pretty sure hard-core capitalists would consider things like "a system in place to protect individual rights, environmental offenses, etc." as socialist regulation.
There are lots of socialists left, they just come across as big government types, redistributionists, collectivists, etc. And support for markets isn't only from the right. Libertarianism, which is on a seperate axis, supports markets as well.
That definition of "socialist" pretty much includes every Republican in Congress and the White House, big spenders all. And Libertarians are hardly on a "different axis" than Republicans; it's what fence-riding shmoes like Glenn Reynolds call themselves when Republicans say/do something stupid, which is pretty much every day now under probably the worst bunch of Republicans to ever set foot in Washington.
The history of this country is one of liberalism, friend - if we didn't grow/change economically, socially, we'd still be on the other side of the Atlantic under rule of kings. Feeble-minded conservatives have been trying to tar liberals as socialists, communists, terrorists - the "they" , since before the Red Scare - because fear is the only thing they truly understand. You owe your freedoms, your comfortable living, your American life to liberals. You, in fact, are a liberal compared to someone perhaps just a decade or two ago. I know you can't believe that (fear is what you understand, remember?), but it's true.
bugs-
I am friendless, isolated and miserable. Living in Europe wouldn't change that. It's a lifestyle, not a pathology.
That's your case. If someone was involuntarily placing you in that condition things might be different. Someone moving to a place of their choosing could make a difference in a situation like that.
anonymous 3:47am-
I'm pretty sure hard-core capitalists would consider things like "a system in place to protect individual rights, environmental offenses, etc." as socialist regulation.
Libertarians are hard-core capitalists and they hold individual rights sacred. And protecting individual rights does not necessarily involve the government - see the civil law system. That is individuals enforcing their rights.
That definition of "socialist" pretty much includes every Republican in Congress and the White House, big spenders all.
Pretty accurate. They have become pretty statist, only with different agendas. A more authoritarian, patriarchal nanny state, but a nanny state nonetheless.
And Libertarians are hardly on a "different axis" than Republicans;
If one is a fairly committed libertarian one IS on a different axis - a statist/non-statist axis versus a left/right axis.
it's what fence-riding shmoes like Glenn Reynolds call themselves when Republicans say/do something stupid, which is pretty much every day now under probably the worst bunch of Republicans to ever set foot in Washington.
Is that Dr. Helen's spouse? I don't know anything about him, so I don't know if what you are saying is accurate.
The history of this country is one of liberalism, friend - if we didn't grow/change economically, socially, we'd still be on the other side of the Atlantic under rule of kings.
If you mean classical liberalism, which is pretty close to modern libertarianism, you are correct. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, et. al. were much closer to libertarianism than the current political left.
Feeble-minded conservatives have been trying to tar liberals as socialists, communists, terrorists - the "they" , since before the Red Scare - because fear is the only thing they truly understand. You owe your freedoms, your comfortable living, your American life to liberals. You, in fact, are a liberal compared to someone perhaps just a decade or two ago. I know you can't believe that (fear is what you understand, remember?), but it's true.
I'll admit that some liberals have done some good work in the area of civil rights. But just as much is owed to the libertarians that founded this country. Liberal economic policy is often a high tax nightmare.
As far as your crap about fear goes, that isn't the case. The collectivist nanny state that some liberals are trying to set up basically tramples on individual rights and liberty.
Funny that we're still having something like the the Federalist / anti-Federalist debate. Two hundred years along and we still haven't figured out what kind of government we want.
People who are critical of America and think "the grass is greener on the other side" ought to spend more time abroad. Having lived in England I learned a lot about their education and health care systems. The US has better on both counts. $3000 annual tuition at a public university in the UK is about the same for many state universities in the US. I sent my son to California State U for less. Sure, private schools are more expensive but who needs Harvard anyway. Besides, Americans can afford higher tuition simply because we make more money and pay less taxes. To get into university in the UK, you have to have very high test scores, typically in the top 10%. Any American kid who can score that well can get lots of scholarships to pay for college. A college education is simply out of reach for many people there. I also experienced socialized medicine there. Trust me, if Americans really knew what they would get under Hillarycare, they would never want it. Many people in these countries who can afford it pay extra for private medical insurance. Waiting nine months for hemorriod oprations or 18 months for removal of nasal polyps would be unacceptable to Americans. Millions of people who live in these socialist paradises would give a lot to emigrate to America. I have known lots of British immigranst who live in the US. Very few ever go back.
As far as your crap about fear goes, that isn't the case. The collectivist nanny state that some liberals are trying to set up basically tramples on individual rights and liberty.
Heh - read that again, and tell me again that you don't use fear.
I imagine you typed that on impulse, not really thinking - or else you might've realized that liberals are fighting for individual rights & liberty right now, against illegal wiretaps, the particularly nasty stuff in the Patriot Act, stop-loss programs, on and on.
Anonymous 2:21:
Perhaps your memory is a bit rusty--even ACLU officials described the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." To refresh your memory, you can read more here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
Thanks, doc - but I think I'll pass.
The Cato Institute is pretty naked front for the right-wing, so I'm not surprised they'd come to Bush's defense on privacy by attacking Clinton.
One more thing - I checked your ACLU quote (because obviously, you didn't); that ACLU rep gave that quote in 1996.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2002/11/24/316/22736
I'm pretty sure "history" didn't stop in 1996, and I'm quite sure the ACLU finds Bush's privacy initiatives infinitely more atrocious.
You are a doctor, right? Y'know, facts and all that?
Does anybody else think it's funny that anonymous won't read a link from the libertarian Cato Institute because they're "nakedly right wing," but then posts a rebutting link to TalkLeft?
I'm just saying'...
Amy K.
anonymous 2:21pm-
Heh - read that again, and tell me again that you don't use fear.
Where's the fear? Many liberals are collectivists and collectivists place supposed or claimed "collective interests" over individual rights.(Usually other people's rights, or rights they don't care about.) There's no more fear-mongering there than in statements made by liberals.
I imagine you typed that on impulse, not really thinking - or else you might've realized that liberals are fighting for individual rights & liberty right now, against illegal wiretaps, the particularly nasty stuff in the Patriot Act, stop-loss programs, on and on.
And in many of those areas I tend to agree with them. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to construct a nanny state in other areas.
Does anybody else think it's funny that anonymous won't read a link from the libertarian Cato Institute because they're "nakedly right wing," but then posts a rebutting link to TalkLeft?
Did you go to both links? The Cato link is an interminable slog; I'm sure even the good Dr. didn't read through all that. I linked to TalkLeft because it was the only link on Google that actually LexisNexis'd the ACLU quote that the Dr. mentioned.
"Does anyone else think its funny" that Amy K. not only made a false assumption, but didn't acknowledge that the Dr. used a quote from the ACLU spuriously?
"I'm just saying..."
Many liberals are collectivists and collectivists place supposed or claimed "collective interests" over individual rights.
Funny, the right never gets very upset about truly massive collective interests like our military or corporate subsidies...but when it's collective interests for ordinary people, like unions or health care - well, we just can't stand for that!
Maybe the difference between left and right is acknowledging that we do have collective interests, that we are "our brother's keeper" - or a selfish obsession with ourselves, the self-delusion that each of us are completely self-sufficient.
"Does anyone else think its funny" that Amy K. not only made a false assumption...
I didn't make any assumptions. I observed something funny.
Amy K.
yes jimbo, i agree with most of your points, i am english to the core, the health service is bad, NOW, its gotten worse, 15 years ago it was rather good, then it started to be run by managers and accountants, rather than doctors, and so it stopped being as good as it once was. look at all the mrsa stories now, but saying all that, it still is a good place to live, (for the moment anyway), better than a lot.
anonymous 11:45pm-
Funny, the right never gets very upset about truly massive collective interests like our military or corporate subsidies...but when it's collective interests for ordinary people, like unions or health care - well, we just can't stand for that!
Libertarians do object to many of those things, so you are wrong here. Much of what remains of the "small government" right does as well.
Maybe the difference between left and right is acknowledging that we do have collective interests, that we are "our brother's keeper" - or a selfish obsession with ourselves, the self-delusion that each of us are completely self-sufficient.
First, most interests, even the collective interests, are best served by the market. Second, there are very, very few collective interests that legitimately require you to act as "your brother's keeper". When anyone ever mentions collective interests like that look a little deeper and you will always find someone at root trying to force their opinions on everyone.
And libertarians and supporters of free markets don't think everyone is self-sufficient - quite the opposite. Markets are built on the principles of specialization of labor and the voluntary, nonviolent exchange of goods and services one can't provide for oneself.
Good point. For all the whining about the evils of "individualism," they ignore the fact that most of us work in offices with other people for large organizations that support the overall prosperity of the nation. OK, so some of us take a bit more off the top than we're strictly entitled to, some even to the level of criminality. You never heard of corrupt government official in socialist countries?
I will agree that capitalism does not always do well in providing for less-productive members of society. On their behalf, the most humane and practical solution may be to impose "involuntary charitable contributions" on the majority in the form of taxes. However, many liberals talk as if the entire purpose of central government is to funnel money and rations to designated victim classes, and everyone else be damned. They need to get over their 60s-vintage obsession with creating Utopia and just take care of the people's - ALL the people's - business.
Collectivism is fine if it's honestly what the people want and if economic conditions prove that it's really the best solution for the populace as a whole. If it's imposed by an Utopianist elite who think they're more intelligent and morally upright than the hoi polloi, then it's a bad thing all around.
anonymous @ 8:10 am said: "Is that Dr. Helen's spouse? I don't know anything about him, so I don't know if what you are saying is accurate."
Sorry if someone already answered this. Yes he is her husband, his website is: www.instapundit.com, you should check it out. Personally, I like Helen's blog more, but that's just because I view her as being more conservative than him. Liberals often consider him as the head of the right-wing blogosphere, but I think that says more about their views than his.
bugs-
I will agree that capitalism does not always do well in providing for less-productive members of society. On their behalf, the most humane and practical solution may be to impose "involuntary charitable contributions" on the majority in the form of taxes.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Capitalism hampered by high taxes, high regulation, croniyism, interventionism, corruption, etc. does a worse job of providing for the poor, less productive, etc. Why isn't less hampered capitalism tried? Because the theory is that the poor, less productive, etc. would be worse off. When the cure is viewed as the disease the patient will always be sick.
They need to get over their 60s-vintage obsession with creating Utopia and just take care of the people's - ALL the people's - business.
One of the problems is that they irrationally blame the rich for the plight of the poor, which is incorrect. (Except for the instances when someone rich directly stold from someone poor, then the rich person or persons is directly responsible.) That isn't the case - the rich provide the investment capital to drive prosperity and wealth creation. There are numerous countries with lots of labor but no investment capital, and those countries have more poverty.
Collectivism is fine if it's honestly what the people want and if economic conditions prove that it's really the best solution for the populace as a whole. If it's imposed by an Utopianist elite who think they're more intelligent and morally upright than the hoi polloi, then it's a bad thing all around.
I disagree. Collectivism is always bad and is a formula for misery. There has to be someone that manages and plans for the "collective's" property. These planners and managers become a new wealthy elite. So they eventually misdirect the collective's property to benefit them and their cronies. At the same time merit, intelligence, labor, creativity, innovation, etc. become less and less incentivized - why bust your ass or share ideas when some clueless leech is going to steal it? So the end result is economic stagnation, less investment, less entrepeneurship, etc. And this isn't even getting into the effects on human, civil, and individual rights - the "collective" (really the new elite and their cronies) is always more important than the individual, so everyone except the elite is basically a slave.
Look at North Korea as a result of collectivism. You have a very small wealthy elite and many people in poverty. Compare this to some capitalist countries - more wealthy people, a lot in the middle, and a fairly small amount in poverty.
Collectivism is basically poison. It doesn't matter how many clueless people want it - it's still going to be poison and slavery.
Hunh. Just brings everyone to a common level of misery.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
本土自拍本土自拍本土自拍本土自拍本土自拍本土自拍本土自拍本土自拍視訊交友視訊美女視訊交友視訊交友高雄網視訊ggo視訊美女34c視訊ukiss視訊交友愛戀之視訊交友web365視訊ukiss視訊聊天室視訊聊天室lover99視訊交友視訊聊天室v6 0視訊聊天室視訊交友90739
Post a Comment
<< Home