Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Semi-OT - The Nation: "The You're-on-Your-Own Society"
37 views
Skip to first unread message
leno...@yahoo.com
Nov 23, 2012, 2:10:40 PM11/23/12
to
http://www.thenation.com/article/171129/youre-your-own-society
Excerpt:
.....The logical corollary of “You’re on your own” is “You’re your own damn fault.” Americans in general are keen on seeing social problems in terms of individual weakness—look at how we demonize fat people, as if the reason so many are overweight is just a lack of willpower. But that mindset is particularly part of the right-wing DNA. After all, if you can hold people solely responsible for their problems, you can ignore them, deprive them, even hate them. Rape victims, women with unwanted pregnancies, poor people (get a job!), drug users, children who commit crimes, people who have been imprudent or out of line in any way, have only themselves to blame. Nicholas Kristof wrote a New York Times column a few weeks ago about his friend Scott, who had a midlife crisis, quit his job to read books and play poker, didn’t buy health insurance even after he went back to work because it was too expensive, and, partly to save money but also because he was busy and had no wife to nudge him, postponed seeing the doctor about disturbing symptoms that proved to be caused by advanced prostate cancer. Kristof’s point was that we all make mistakes, and that good public policy takes that into account. In a follow-up column that noted Scott’s death, Kristof wrote that he was “taken aback by how many readers were savagely unsympathetic. ‘Your friend made a foolish choice, and actions have consequences,’ one reader said in a Twitter message.” Yes, actions have consequences, and that’s why we need society to protect us from our folly, ignorance and bad judgment—our own and one another’s. Sooner or later, everybody takes risks that turn out poorly. Some people have unprotected sex, cross against the light, drive too fast, ride a motorcycle without a helmet in Connecticut (where for some crazy reason that is legal), don’t wear a seat belt, drink too much, send money in response to e-mails from Nigerian princes, don’t vaccinate their kids. Some people refused to evacuate during Sandy—should relief workers deny them a hot meal and a blanket?
If you want an example of how approaching social issues from an individualist mindset harms everyone, consider lung cancer. This very serious disease kills 160,000 Americans each year—that’s more than one in four cancer deaths. It is the number-one fatal cancer in both women and men. Twice as many women die of lung cancer as breast cancer—and one in five of those women has never smoked a single cigarette (for men, it’s one in twelve). In fact, at least 55 percent of people with lung cancer either never smoked or no longer smoke; some quit decades ago. And yet, because lung cancer is generally associated with smoking, and smoking is an addiction and something only “morons” and “idiots” (to use Tea Party terminology) would ever, ever do, lung cancer does not get anything like the research funding from the National Institutes of Health that other cancers get, relative to the number of deaths it causes. There are no telethons or star-studded Hollywood galas, no race for the lung cancer cure, none of those weirdly cheerful “awareness” campaigns. Even the afflicted and their families tend to stay quiet—the stigma is too great. Never mind that many of them started smoking back in the Mad Men days when it was a ubiquitous custom promoted by government, media and, of course, the powerful tobacco industry itself. For years after the surgeon general’s report, women’s magazines were crammed with cigarette ads and left lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases out of their editorial coverage of health issues.
Today, the ads are fewer—thanks to, yes, government regulations—but because of guilt and shame, the silence continues. “You don’t know how ignored we are by the media,” Linda Wenger, head of the advocacy group Uniting Against Lung Cancer, told me by phone.....
(snip)
Lenona.
Sarah Ehrett
Nov 23, 2012, 3:53:52 PM11/23/12
to
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:10:40 -0800 (PST), leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
Reading crap like this without the ability to think critically is exactly
what Obama and his handlers are going for.
>http://www.thenation.com/article/171129/youre-your-own-society
>
>Excerpt:
>
>.....The logical corollary of “You’re on your own” is “You’re your own damn fault.” Americans in general are keen on seeing social problems in terms of individual weakness—look at how we demonize fat people, as if the reason so many are overweight is just a lack of willpower. But that mindset is particularly part of the right-wing DNA.
Who exactly is legislating what we eat and drink? Bloomberg? Michelle
Obama? Right-wing really???
>After all, if you can hold people solely responsible for their problems, you can ignore them, deprive them, even hate them. Rape victims, women with unwanted pregnancies, poor people (get a job!), drug users, children who commit crimes, people who have been imprudent or out of line in any way, have only themselves to blame.
To a point that is absolutely true.
>Nicholas Kristof wrote a New York Times column a few weeks ago about his friend Scott, who had a midlife crisis, quit his job to read books and play poker, didn’t buy health insurance even after he went back to work because it was too expensive, and, partly to save money but also because he was busy and had no wife to nudge him, postponed seeing the doctor about disturbing symptoms that proved to be caused by advanced prostate cancer. Kristof’s point was that we all make mistakes, and that good public policy takes that into account.
So the state should decide for us all. No thanks.
>In a follow-up column that noted Scott’s death, Kristof wrote that he was “taken aback by how many readers were savagely unsympathetic. ‘Your friend made a foolish choice, and actions have consequences,’ one reader said in a Twitter message.”
It's called self reliance.
>Yes, actions have consequences, and that’s why we need society to protect us from our folly, ignorance and bad judgment—our own and one another’s. Sooner or later, everybody takes risks that turn out poorly. Some people have unprotected sex, cross against the light, drive too fast, ride a motorcycle without a helmet in Connecticut (where for some crazy reason that is legal), don’t wear a seat belt, drink too much, send money in response to e-mails from Nigerian princes, don’t vaccinate their kids. Some people refused to evacuate during Sandy—should relief workers deny them a hot meal and a blanket?
Is this guy serious?
Are there FEMA trailers set up in NY/NJ to house those left without homes?
Or are they still tied up in NO with Katrina victims still sitting on their
butts?
>If you want an example of how approaching social issues from an individualist mindset harms everyone, consider lung cancer. This very serious disease kills 160,000 Americans each year—that’s more than one in four cancer deaths. It is the number-one fatal cancer in both women and men. Twice as many women die of lung cancer as breast cancer—and one in five of those women has never smoked a single cigarette (for men, it’s one in twelve). In fact, at least 55 percent of people with lung cancer either never smoked or no longer smoke; some quit decades ago.
Ok, so smoking is not the primary cause?
> And yet, because lung cancer is generally associated with smoking, and smoking is an addiction and something only “morons” and “idiots” (to use Tea Party terminology)
I like to see a cite for those heartless bastards! Show me a Tea Party
person saying that!
>would ever, ever do, lung cancer does not get anything like the research funding from the National Institutes of Health that other cancers get, relative to the number of deaths it causes. There are no telethons or star-studded Hollywood galas, no race for the lung cancer
>cure, none of those weirdly cheerful “awareness” campaigns. Even the afflicted and their families tend to stay quiet—the stigma is too great. Never mind that many of them started smoking back in the Mad Men days when it was a ubiquitous custom promoted by government, media and, of course, the powerful tobacco industry itself. For years after the surgeon general’s report, women’s magazines were crammed with cigarette ads and left lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases out of their editorial coverage of health issues.
>
>Today, the ads are fewer—thanks to, yes, government regulations—but because of guilt and shame, the silence continues. “You don’t know how ignored we are by the media,” Linda Wenger, head of the advocacy group Uniting Against Lung Cancer, told me by phone.....
Yo Linda! You want to abolish smoking? Get Congress to make tobacco
illegal.
Why doesn't that ever come before the Congress?
Any idea?
Sorry Leona but you pick the dopiest ill informed articles to post.
>(snip)
>
>
>Lenona.
Reading crap like this without the ability to think critically is exactly
what Obama and his handlers are going for.
>http://www.thenation.com/article/171129/youre-your-own-society
>
>Excerpt:
>
>.....The logical corollary of “You’re on your own” is “You’re your own damn fault.” Americans in general are keen on seeing social problems in terms of individual weakness—look at how we demonize fat people, as if the reason so many are overweight is just a lack of willpower. But that mindset is particularly part of the right-wing DNA.
Obama? Right-wing really???
>After all, if you can hold people solely responsible for their problems, you can ignore them, deprive them, even hate them. Rape victims, women with unwanted pregnancies, poor people (get a job!), drug users, children who commit crimes, people who have been imprudent or out of line in any way, have only themselves to blame.
>Nicholas Kristof wrote a New York Times column a few weeks ago about his friend Scott, who had a midlife crisis, quit his job to read books and play poker, didn’t buy health insurance even after he went back to work because it was too expensive, and, partly to save money but also because he was busy and had no wife to nudge him, postponed seeing the doctor about disturbing symptoms that proved to be caused by advanced prostate cancer. Kristof’s point was that we all make mistakes, and that good public policy takes that into account.
>In a follow-up column that noted Scott’s death, Kristof wrote that he was “taken aback by how many readers were savagely unsympathetic. ‘Your friend made a foolish choice, and actions have consequences,’ one reader said in a Twitter message.”
>Yes, actions have consequences, and that’s why we need society to protect us from our folly, ignorance and bad judgment—our own and one another’s. Sooner or later, everybody takes risks that turn out poorly. Some people have unprotected sex, cross against the light, drive too fast, ride a motorcycle without a helmet in Connecticut (where for some crazy reason that is legal), don’t wear a seat belt, drink too much, send money in response to e-mails from Nigerian princes, don’t vaccinate their kids. Some people refused to evacuate during Sandy—should relief workers deny them a hot meal and a blanket?
Are there FEMA trailers set up in NY/NJ to house those left without homes?
Or are they still tied up in NO with Katrina victims still sitting on their
butts?
>If you want an example of how approaching social issues from an individualist mindset harms everyone, consider lung cancer. This very serious disease kills 160,000 Americans each year—that’s more than one in four cancer deaths. It is the number-one fatal cancer in both women and men. Twice as many women die of lung cancer as breast cancer—and one in five of those women has never smoked a single cigarette (for men, it’s one in twelve). In fact, at least 55 percent of people with lung cancer either never smoked or no longer smoke; some quit decades ago.
> And yet, because lung cancer is generally associated with smoking, and smoking is an addiction and something only “morons” and “idiots” (to use Tea Party terminology)
person saying that!
>would ever, ever do, lung cancer does not get anything like the research funding from the National Institutes of Health that other cancers get, relative to the number of deaths it causes. There are no telethons or star-studded Hollywood galas, no race for the lung cancer
>cure, none of those weirdly cheerful “awareness” campaigns. Even the afflicted and their families tend to stay quiet—the stigma is too great. Never mind that many of them started smoking back in the Mad Men days when it was a ubiquitous custom promoted by government, media and, of course, the powerful tobacco industry itself. For years after the surgeon general’s report, women’s magazines were crammed with cigarette ads and left lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases out of their editorial coverage of health issues.
>
>Today, the ads are fewer—thanks to, yes, government regulations—but because of guilt and shame, the silence continues. “You don’t know how ignored we are by the media,” Linda Wenger, head of the advocacy group Uniting Against Lung Cancer, told me by phone.....
illegal.
Why doesn't that ever come before the Congress?
Any idea?
Sorry Leona but you pick the dopiest ill informed articles to post.
>(snip)
>
>
>Lenona.
nixi...@earthlink.net
Nov 23, 2012, 4:21:21 PM11/23/12
to
On Friday, November 23, 2012 12:53:54 PM UTC-8, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>
> Yo Linda! You want to abolish smoking? Get Congress to make tobacco
>
> illegal.
>
>
>
> Why doesn't that ever come before the Congress?
>
>
>
> Any idea?
>
>
>
>
>
Maybe it's because the tobacco lobby puts millions to stop such a scenario. And most tobacco execs are right-wingers, as are those tha lobby AGAINST mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.
>
> Yo Linda! You want to abolish smoking? Get Congress to make tobacco
>
> illegal.
>
>
>
> Why doesn't that ever come before the Congress?
>
>
>
> Any idea?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >Lenona.
Sarah Ehrett
Nov 23, 2012, 4:53:45 PM11/23/12
to
on the tobacco suits? John Edwards. He's not a right winger. Who are
the senators and congressmen from the tobacco growing states? All right
wingers? Nope. And please feel free to list the names of the tobacco
execs who are right wingers.
Motorcycle helmet laws? I live in Rhode Island. We don't have a
mandatory helmet law for all operators.
"Rhode Island's motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers (regardless
of age) and all operators during the first year of licensure (regardless of
age). " http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx
The kid across the street has owned a bike since 2003 and has never worn a
helmet. My husband Ken sometimes rides with him. Ken always wears a full
face helmet when riding.
>> >Lenona.
Message has been deleted
Michael OConnor
Nov 24, 2012, 6:19:46 PM11/24/12
to
> Mmmm, no it's not about the tobacco lobby. Do you know who made millions
> on the tobacco suits? John Edwards. He's not a right winger. Who are
> the senators and congressmen from the tobacco growing states? All right
> wingers? Nope. And please feel free to list the names of the tobacco
> execs who are right wingers.
farm, and for six years after his sister died of lung cancer in 1984,
continued to take money from the tobacco lobbies and grew tobacco on
his family farm, according to that right wing rag The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-on-tobacco.html
~M~
Nov 24, 2012, 6:30:08 PM11/24/12
to
"Terry del Fuego" wrote in message
news:4ek2b85rim5hv9uvs...@4ax.com...
>Or maybe it's because prohibition is nearly as ineffective and
>worthless as prohibitionists.
The prohibitionists should start up a new constituency group so they can get
themselves a piece of the handout pie, so they can benefit from being
worthless, too.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule."
- H.L. Mencken
news:4ek2b85rim5hv9uvs...@4ax.com...
>Or maybe it's because prohibition is nearly as ineffective and
>worthless as prohibitionists.
The prohibitionists should start up a new constituency group so they can get
themselves a piece of the handout pie, so they can benefit from being
worthless, too.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule."
- H.L. Mencken
Message has been deleted
~M~
Nov 24, 2012, 10:44:29 PM11/24/12
to
"Terry del Fuego" wrote in message
news:5on2b8pc4i7dbb2i8...@4ax.com...
>They've been in exactly that position since St. Ronald escalated the
>War On Some Politically Powerless Drugs in the 1980s.
So, what handouts are they getting from the government?
>I'm surprised
>you haven't heard of it, it was in most of the papers.
I did. I'm not sure why you brought this into it though. I am not in favor
of the war on drugs. I assume you aren't, either. What's your point?
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are
free."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Message has been deleted
~M~
Nov 26, 2012, 6:43:37 AM11/26/12
to
"Terry del Fuego" wrote in message
news:10n4b8tb749lha7sq...@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:44:29 -0500, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:
>>So, what handouts are they getting from the government?
>significant chunk of the so-called "Justice" department and much of
>the unnecessary testing and forced "rehab" companies do not enjoy
>their status as a direct result of government policy and a massive
>chunk of taxpayer money? And those are just the
>off-the-top-of-my-head "people".
While these groups do get a massive chunk of taxpayer money, I do not
consider them prohibitionists.
You might make the argument that DEA agents can be considered
prohibitionists, but prison employees? Prisons actually house a bunch of
people that aren't drug dealers/users. If you let all the inmates out that
are only in there for non-violent drug offenses, you will still have
overcrowded prisons. Testing and rehab companies? Do you think any
relaxation of drug laws would make them go away? Are you serious? Do you
really think that the Justice Department will start shrinking of they do
away with laws outlawing pot?
>>I did. I'm not sure why you brought this into it though. I am not in favor
>>of the war on drugs. I assume you aren't, either. What's your point?
>constituency group so they can get themselves a piece of the handout
>pie, so they can benefit from being worthless, too."
I did.
>pie, so they can benefit from being worthless, too."
> If you can do
>that, you'll very likely have your answer. If you can't--or claim you
>can't--there's no point in continuing this.
This doesn't follow. What's your point? Hopefully its not that if you wave a
magic wand and legalize pot, people will stop committing crime, or won't
have drug problems. It also won't reduce the size of the government, and
employers will still not want to hire drug users, and in many cases, they
won't be able to even if they want to. And it's still hypocritical to fight
to legalize marijuana while fighting to criminalize tobacco use.
--
"An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage,
concludes that it will also make better soup."
- H.L. Mencken
Message has been deleted
~M~
Nov 26, 2012, 6:54:25 PM11/26/12
to
"Terry del Fuego" wrote in message
news:ogr6b89ttl2etqb45...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:43:37 -0500, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:
>You're probably happier than I am
I don't doubt it. You seem like a very bitter little man. Or woman.
--
"What men value in this world is not rights but privileges."
- H.L. Mencken
0 new messages