whats the deal with Y2K??? [Archive]

Tiassa

11-18-99, 10:57 PM

Truestory:

Snore yourself. Surprise me with a response. You don't like people who disagree with you, and you seem to very much dislike people who think they agree with you but won't use the proper words and terms. Furthermore, before you start making statements about my limited exposure to diverse individuals, I might remind you to shut the hell up.

Why? Because I don't care what the AICPA discourages. The NRA discourages irresponsible handgun use. The CPCU discourages complex and confusing insurance policies. The DMV discourages bad driving.

So I'm actually inclined to ask what you do for a living. ONLY ... only in the sense that I'm wondering how many times you've sat on a shipment because someone in accounting wanted to go over the paperwork and is suddenly out to lunch for six hours? Gee, maybe it's almost every day?

Or are you an accountant? It could just be that you're not feeling to nicely about the implication that accountants are among society's least useful professionals. If it was just accounting of numbers, that's one thing. But where I live, accountants, actuarials, and financial consultants bear a heavy burden on the nature of regulation. We can build a billion dollars worth of sports arenas in this town because the money people can project a financial return. But we won't invest in career training, or even basic literacy in our schools on a large scale because it's "not economically viable" (which means "It doesn't make enough money".) Or then there are the accountants with a sense of "civic responsibility". Answer me a question here:

* Take away the majority of an entity's ability to create revenue. Operate at the same production level ... perhaps even increase production? What is going to happen?

Whenever we have a deep-impacting ballot initiative in Washington state, the various sides march out their accountants to publicly argue over the financial effect. The people just bought that kind of crap hook, line, and sinker, for the third time up here. In 1997, accountants said they projected an increase in insurance rates if we passed a law that prevented HMO's from blacklisting doctors. Despite the fact that these accountants were all employed by the biggest insurers in the state, the people bought their pitch. In 1998, accountants actually managed to convince the voters that ending affirmative action would "improve the economy"; everyone I know who voted for that initiative thinks they were voting to "improve the economy"; the only effect we've seen in the first year is a 20-33% reduction in minority enrollment in public colleges in the state. Now, in 1999, the accountants convinced the voters to throw out the state's primary revenue device. In the effort to eliminate registration fees, the accountants have set up a financial situation which only a state income tax can fix. Over half the budget gone. Boom. Dead. Gee, who gets paid to figure out income taxes? Would it be accountants?

Truestory, your pie-in-the-sky intrigues me. I actually can't tell if you're arguing with me just to argue, or if you actually have something for the accountants. They're no worse off than the rest of us, morally. But their job revolves around a fiction--money. And that lust for fiction sometimes impedes human function. Stereotype that.

Extreme, extreme, extreme. It seems that you're going to call me extreme until I renounce the last drop of freedom in my soul and submit to your oh-so wise ways. Bite your extreme and shove your stereotypes in your ear.

Funny, someone who thinks there's only ONE WAY to live life, giving me crap about diversity. I'd say you're a laugh-riot, but you're actually not funny at all. But that's okay. Accountants don't like funny people unless they're making money being funny.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

666

11-19-99, 03:32 AM

Tiassa,

it sounds like you have a verry bad view of accountants. Thier are not useless, they serve a verry important role. I work for a small company and do some of the accounting (amongst all most every thing eles :)) and if someone didn't do it the rest of the company would fall apart. Just like other valuable positions in a company, like say the janitor, you need to have the work done or the sh*t hits the fan maybe not today but at the end of the month it will.

Now as for Y2K. Well what can be said that hasn't allready been said by someone eles?

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

truestory

11-19-99, 05:07 PM

tiassa,

Sounds to me that perhaps you are projecting some of your limited thinking onto me. You see tiassa, unlike you, I like all people, regardless of their beliefs or the team they play for or the industry they have chosen to work for or the profession they have chosen for their career...

What I am objecting to here, is your habit of constantly lumping individuals under mass "labels" for the purpose of negatively slamming an entire segment of society. It comes across as extremely prejudicial... I like you tiassa... What I object to is your attempts to "degrade" entire groups of individuals through extreme negative stereotyping because they happen to believe something different than you, because they play for a team that you don't root for, because they work for a particular segment of business or government that you deem to be "unworthy" or who have chosen a professional career which you also deem to be "unworthy".

I am happy to say that my career has exposed me to all different types of organizations at various levels and has exposed me to many diverse individuals within various professions. I have worked with a sole-proprietorship, a partnership, a small corporation, a medium-sized corporation, a large corporation and government (not necessarily in that order). My experience is with both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. I have been at the senior executive level for many years now and I can tell you, with an attitude like yours, the success of the organizations with which I have been charged would have been doomed from the beginning. As 666 put it, an accountant, like any other individual in any other profession is not "useless" as it seems you would like us to believe.

Yes, there are people with either excellent, good, fair or poor work ethics, skills and problem-solving abilities within all levels of organizations. However, if I were to label them and have a preconceived notion of their "individual" character, their work ethic, their skill level or their actual problem-solving abilities based on the "labels" which tiassa places upon them, their would be no progress. Suffice it to say that my experiences with various accounting individuals whom I have both worked with and hired have been quite different from yours.

My attitude is not what I would call "pie-in-the-sky" tiassa. It is what I would call "more reasonable" and respectful of individuals, regardless of what "label" tiassa chooses to place on them.

P.S.

If people who disagree with you were to actually heed your suggestions to "shut the hell up" it would only serve to further limit your exposure to diversity. Is that what you really want?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 19, 1999).]

Tiassa

11-19-99, 07:36 PM

TrueStory--

First off, you're right. Accountants are the most important and morally sterling people in the world so long as you subscribe to the notion that a dollar bill is actually worth more than the paper it's printed on. The problem is, nobody knows what a dollar is worth. So, two might get you a loaf of bread? Okay, there's a way to measure it's value. But we don't. It's so formulaic and obscure that it takes various teams of people to cover all of the factors involved with determining what a dollar is worth. And how well do these clusters of sterling thinkers communicate? Well .... if I apply my usual standard, that I shouldn't expect more of other people than I expect of myself--and if I look around at the state of communications at my present company, and compare that to my past experiences--well, I'd say the communication between the left hand and the right hand is darn poor. So the end result is that I dare anyone to tell me exactly what a dollar is worth, aside from one-hundred pennies, or two cups of coffee. I don't care what it equals compared to a pound-sterling, I don't care what it equals compared to the Yen.

Now, I don't care whether or not people disagree with me. That's what this forum is for. However, I might remind you that the fact we're going through this indicates you missed the point entirely, choosing instead to argue over what was already a fair-size generalization describing a process that is important to what I think will happen during Y2k.

So, if you like all people, regardless ad nauseum .... Yeah. I suppose "feeding my family" is an important enough idea to want to do something, say, immoral. I would ask you how you feel about the people at Gillette, inc., who "feed their families" by testing cosmetics on animals, except, well, I already have your answer. How far does it go? We don't accept "it was my orders" for war crimes. How about "I was trying to feed my family"?

I don't care whether an accountant is a Christian, a vegetarian, or a wife-beater. Those things I can't know about them. But I do care when someone thinks their best job is to make life more complicated--this is the standard result when accountants overstep the notion of simply accounting. I think of accountants as a social necessity: we have chosen this ugly, money-obssessed path and now must hire accountants to figure out the mess we've made. Certainly they perform a vital function, but it is a vital function supporting an extraneous, ficticious need. Ergo, it equals nothing.

And remember, your perception of my being degrading is merely that: your perception. I can say someone has a useless job. I know--I have a useless job.

Your abusive use of the word "extreme" (extreme, extreme, it's all extreme!) So tell me, then ... does it surprise you when lawyers oppose legislation capping their fees? Does it surprise me when accountants support complex tax laws that ensure a steady business flow for years to come? Would I be nearly as extreme if I said sports agents were useless? After all, somebody's gotta negotiate that six-million dollar contract and finagle your name onto a shoe.

A popular term derived from accountants seems to be "the bottom line". I'm curious, then, if you support--or even see--the bottom-line mentality possessing Western, and especially American, culture. After all, we cannot see the effect of improving public education in a ledger. Not right away, at least. Thus, the accountants advise against such a high-risk investment. The accountants can, however, magically pull a billion dollars out of thin air to build two sports arenas. Incidentally, I support these arenas; I just find it sickeningly ironic that, given a choice, the voters prefer the bottom-line mentality: locally, at least, we feel it better to have comfortable athletes than well-prepared students. Why? I can only speculate, if it's not too extreme. But I'm pretty sure it has something to do with being able to tax ticket revenues and not being able to financially tax the value of knowledge. It's a better-looking bottom line.

It seems about consistent with your presented reasoning that you think I just haven't met enough people. That's among one of your better, frequent responses. We could look at a parallel: I don't like work by the author Bob Larsen. Someone once told me I just hadn't read enough of his work. So how much should I read? The answer was sadly incoherent, but the gist of it was that I'm supposed to keep reading and keep reading until the guy publishes something that impresses me. So I could, I suppose, grab my lantern and walk the Earth, seeking an honest accountant. Would that satisfy your diversity requirements?

I will restate, to make sure I'm clear: People are people--it's hard to object to them. I cannot fault them for being black, white, yellow, Christian, Jew, Muslim .... Many things we are born with, including some of the subjective things. But something we have to choose is what we do with our lives. If accountants stuck to addition and subtraction, then hey ... it's a fair, but seemingly boring gig. However, when accountants set the terms of progress with their "bottom-line" ideas, I think we're crossing into a whole new set of ideas. If it was just adding and subtracting, I don't see the need for the title CPA. But as it is, accountants have the culture convinced the only bottom line that counts is measured in dollars. And to continue to advocate that philosophy is wrong, especially when progress toward it merely increases your own wealth.

It's not like skin color. You can stop being an accountant any day. Don't want to? Fine. Don't like the way accountants are represented? Change the way they act. But to continue to go forward in the current context is choosing to advocate its detriments. In other words, wishing ill.

You're right, I am extreme. I see a culture with certain needs and desires. I see the same culture sacking those ideas because they cost too much, and don't show on the bottom line either soon or dramatically enough. Soon enough, from any combination of circumstances, problems will reach a point where no amount of money you can throw at the problem will solve it. I could gleefully ask what good money will do then, and especially the accountants who work with it. But that's not the point: I would rather avoid the crisis. Yes, I'm a terrible extremist because my general philosophy shows we should avoid the avoidable complications of society. Would you rather treat cancer symptoms or cure the disease? After all, any accountant will tell you it's better for your bottom line to treat the symptoms. If you cure the disease, you might lose your customer. Metaphorically or literally, I feel the same way.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory

11-19-99, 08:21 PM

tiassa,

As you have made some suggestions, so shall I... try substituting "THE accountants" with "SOME accountants"... your arguments would make more sense... :)

Next:

Funny, someone who thinks there's only ONE WAY to live life, giving me crap about diversity.

Try to understand that I never said that there's only ONE WAY to live life... To the contrary, I am aware of our free-will to live life as we please... Perhaps you are confusing this with only one way to salvation?

Last (for now):

First off, you're right. Accountants are the most important and morally sterling people in the world so long as you subscribe to the notion that a dollar bill is actually worth more than the paper it's printed on.

As you are well aware, I never even insinuated such a thing... Try not to twist and exaggerate so much. :)

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 19, 1999).]

Tiassa

11-19-99, 08:27 PM

Truestory--

Okay. I can accept that. I can use SOME.

Now, if we've moved past semantics, can we get to the topic issue?

thx
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory

11-19-99, 08:48 PM

tiassa,

Sure! :)

So, what is the point? You have come across certain people in certain positions who you believe are stifling progress in addressing certain social issues? You feel powerless to make a difference, or what?

Lori

11-19-99, 09:11 PM

Guess what? I'm an accountant. I think that you guys may be labeling the wrong people in a way. The accountants crunch the numbers, yes, but they always crunch them in a way that spits out the answer that upper management wants. It's called creative accounting. Do you guys have any idea how much money a typical accountant makes? Believe me, we're not the ones getting rich. That's the CEO's, the VP's, the stockholders, or investors, not the accountants. It's the system. The whole flippin' thing. I used to "buy in" to it. Now I don't anymore. I hate my job. It's the most boring, tedious, useless job I can think of. But really, accountants are not the problem. They are primarily just peons who do whatever the boss says. Greed is the real culprit. The rich get richer right? There aren't many accountants out there getting rich; they're just trying to keep a roof over their heads like everyone else. They are just doing their jobs. If there wasn't a demand for it (the rich people who own the business demand it), they would gladly do something else to make a buck. I'm looking to make a change. I can't stand counting someone else's money all damn day and putting it into little "buckets". Who gives a shit, ya know? I get zero satisfaction out of my job. I'd like to do something that actually helps people (not help the rich get richer). Do you know who else makes the big money? The salesman. Shoving a bunch of useless crap that no one really needs down people's throats. They get big commissions for that. You know, it's really all of our faults for buying into this crazy system. If there wasn't a demand, there would be no sale. If the CEO decided to give the grain away instead of letting it rot, do you really think that the accountant would give a shit? Accountants NEVER give a shit. That's the whole nature of the job. Man, I hate my job. TGIF!

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Tiassa

11-19-99, 09:59 PM

Lori--

For the first time ever, let me say "Amen" to your post.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory

11-20-99, 01:32 AM

O.K. Lori,

You can use your current skills and possibly even satisfy your desires by becoming the national director of one of a number of Christian Charity organizatiions in this country... In that role, in addition to helping people, you would ultimately be held responsible and accountable for the success of the entire organization and its going-concern and the welfare of it's employees and its beneficiaries. Your salary would be comparable to what you are currently earning...

Oh, one thing though... These organizations have a thing about image, so... Character counts... If you cursed at people who pissed you off, you'd be fired. ;)

666

11-20-99, 04:12 AM

Tiassa,

If money not important, can I have all of yours?!

Lori,

Well I have to say you made some very vaild points. Have ever thought of looking for another job? Having a job you hate isn't healthy for you.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

Oxygen

11-20-99, 04:18 AM

truestory-I think she only cuts loose on us, as evidenced by the fact that she is still gainfully employed. Maybe we stay here because we like abuse :D?

I used to have a job where I could tell the clientele off. It was great. We got paid by the state to deliver medical supplies. We had a contract of sorts that made it very hard for the state to dump us. Most of the people were cool. They had enough on their hands with handicapped children without pissing people off. But some were of the "You owe me a living because I couldn't keep away from the drugs when I was pregnant" variety. I had no problem with the kids. They were just kids, after all, and some were angels while others were brats. But the parents would sometimes grate on my nerves. They'd piss me off, I'd tell them off, and they couldn't do anything about it because the state couldn't change carriers in this area. I really had to be pushed to it, though.

truestory

11-21-99, 08:51 PM

Thanks for the input, Oxygen... Well, Lori, Oxygen has presented another option! You could help people by delivering much needed medical supplies and curse at them if they piss you off without being fired! (I don't know how much it pays, though, if that's a consideration). :)

Seriously, though... Are you leaning in any particular direction?

Corp.Hudson

11-22-99, 03:34 AM

FYI, the date change will not make missles launch automatically. The initial fear was not over this, but incoming missle detection systems malfunctioning and showing incoming ICBM's or whatever. As a result of that malfunctioning equipment, whoever is in charge of the missles may mistakenly return fire.

To combat this, Russia and the US have set up a joint missle detection center in Colorado Springs, CO. Hooefully this rectifies any problems ;)

SkyeBlue

11-22-99, 05:28 PM

Bean Counters! It's the damn Bean Counters!

Okay just kidding. I think Y2K is a bunch of hoopla. I watched the most rediculous movie last night about a nulclear plant that went buggy because of the new year. I laughed my butt off at it, it was so full of errors - I don't know much about nuclear plants and even I could see a bunch of stuff that is contrary to real Physics.

I work for a financial institution and we have been Y2K ready since June. Our core system has been Y2K ready since 1987. I plan on partying my behiny off come midnight. The 'scarey' date in my institution was 9/9/99 - a lot of outside vendors were using 9999 as a 'null' or 'non expireing' date, but we weathered it just fine.

I agree that the most danger is going to come from the general public. What nutso cult leader is going to decide to take a whole city with him to the 'promise land' or something? (Hey, now, nobody attack me for generalizing the nutso cult leaders, okay? It's still okay to slam them, right? :) )

I have an uncle that scares the crap out of me - he's one of those "I got me more guns than the whole police force" kind of guys. He's planning on barracading himself in his house with his rifles. He actually is asking for everyone to give him ammo for Christmas this year, "'cause you never know who might want to take my supplies". Criminy. I'm going to stay the HELL away from him this year! :)

I think there might be a couple of minor power outages - nothing that's not repaired in 2 or 3 hours at most though. A couple glitches here and there, but I seriously doubt anything major is going to happen. You might find an elderly ATM machine that won't take your card, or something small like that. Of course, if you get paid by the government, they like to screw up payroll a lot, so that might be a bummer. Otherwise, unfortunately your credit card balance won't disappear (wouldn't that be nice!!!), and your savings won't disappear, your pacemaker won't try to spin out into orbit, your car won't start driving itself...

I've actually read some pretty darn funny Y2K horror stories - I didn't make up the ones about the pacemaker & the self-driving car. People can be so stupid.

Besides, if things were really hitting the fan, if the clocks are cranked back to 1976 we'll be just fine. The dates all line up to 2000 perfectly. It's even a leap year.

Lori

11-22-99, 07:34 PM

Oh man, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. That's twice today thank you. Let's just say I know when I have to be an actress. Sometimes (especially when I interviewed for my last job) I feel like a more accomplished actress than accountant. I shouldn't have even taken it but I'm a chicken shit. Afraid to let go of the stability, and have to hear my parents and friends and husband tell me I'm wasting my degree. And oh yea, I've thought about a change alright. A huge change. TS, I know what you're saying about using my skills to help others, and I would definately feel good about that. I was the treasurer for a local no-kill animal shelter for a while. That gave me a little warm-fuzzy. I still don't enjoy doing the work though. I think it's absolutely insane the way a lot of us "professionals" live our lives nowadays, I can't help it. No one should have to sit in a blankity-blank cubicle, under flourescent lighting, with no flippin' windows, practically chained to a computer terminal crunching numbers all day and putting up with people's phony crapola. At least 8 hours a day, at least 5 days a week, with a puny 2 weeks of vacation a year, til I'm so old all I have the energy to do is sit in a damn rocking chair and die. I want to do something I'm passionate about and that I enjoy doing. So I could just hop right out of bed in the morning and be anxious to get up and start my day. What a foreign concept. I'd make a good preacher if I could keep my tongue in line. Oh, now that got me laughing again. LOL!

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Tiassa

11-22-99, 11:03 PM

Truestory--

I think I have an answer to a less than elegant question:

"So, what is the point? You have come across certain people in certain positions who you believe are stifling progress in addressing certain social issues? You feel powerless to make a difference, or what?"

Okay ... try this.

Walk into a bar, sit down, order a beer. Tell the barkeep, the person next to you--anyone, really--your own set of troubles. Not so much the specifics (Bob did this and Alice did this and Carol did this ....) as the broader idea of feelings and reasons behind your troubles. That person will tell you, "I know it ... everyone knows it."

Now this is where I run into a problem. If everyone you tell already knows what the problem is, and if everyone knows it's a problem ... why don't they change it? You eventually run into moral paradoxes that are similar to favorite atheist targets: pro-lifers who kill, &c. It's more subtle, I admit. But there's a perfectly good reason why those fifty cents in your pocket won't help that homeless person. There's a perfectly good reason why your tax dollars won't help education. There's a perfectly good reason for everything about our society that disappoints us. And we all know that these things are fundamentally wrong. Even if we sat and argued for days, we could still draw out a list of common societal ills that general convention could accept.

And nobody wants to go forward. Don't like crime? How to solve it? Build more prisons? Okay. Better education? Hey-hey, now there's an idea. But what galls me is that the prisons are overcrowded because pot smokers get better room reservations than pimps or armed robbers; that education dollars serve better if we give them to businesses as "investments"; that, despite the link between economic distress and crime, we still find it necessary to press our poor in order to support our rich.

Don't like lying politicians? What to do? Actually, anything but the norm will help fix that. For as much as people seem to dislike the current political structure in the United States, I guarantee you that the most part of those people will still but their mark in the box of an established politician ... exactly what that person will claim to not want.

Simpler? How about this: I actually know pot smokers who vote against legalization. The only theory I've ever heard is that dealers will lose too much money if pot becomes legal. But this idea just supports the notion of why people make these dumb decisions.

It's about the "bottom line".

And that's all it is. It's the idea that a roomful of would-be revolutionaries would rather shout down good ideas with old-school slogans--the very slogans they want to break.

So, how to change? Should I approach the sheep, who herd around a bad idea? Or should I speak with the shepherd, who feeds them that idea, knowing that the sheep's compulsive appetite will only make the shepherd fatter?

I've argued with individuals about bottom-line culture. The hardest thing in the world to overcome is that most believe in it because they don't know any better. Sure communism failed; sure, it probably should have. But ask a young anticommunist about the history of communism and you get two answers: that it was wrong, and that any evidence of its propriety is irrelevant. Why? I've heard all kinds of answers, but so far they boil down to humans are greedy. Furthermore, ask them about a facet of communism that does not have directly to do with the exchange of money, and they still just cover their ears and say it's evil. For instance ... do the threats of early Russian communists seem quite so frightening when you consider that the hospitable offerings of the United States at the time of the October Revolution were actually teams of insurgents intending to unseat the Bolsheviks before they could settle into their power? Sadly, I can't get a proper answer even from the Socialists (they're just as polar).

It's like I asked about a woman being assaulted in a bar, or a preacher lying from the pulpit ... are we not in some way responsible if we leave alone what we know to be evil?

And that's all there is.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory

12-01-99, 02:47 PM

Hello tiassa,

I posted a reply a few days ago but for some reason it didn't make its way on board so I'll try again. :)

Why don't people do something when they agree that a certain evil exists? There are as many countless reasons for inaction as there are ills in the world.

Sometimes people agree with you in the hopes that you will shut up (not you, specifically, tiassa), perhaps because they went to the bar to drink and to dwell on and drown their own personal problems or perhaps because they are the type who like to avoid confrontation.

As you know, the difference between change and stagnation is action and taking positive action is something which many people have difficutly doing. Sometimes because they are apathetic and/or lazy, sometimes because they are hung-over and too caught-up in their own personal problems to care about anyone else, sometimes because they feel powerless as an individual, sometimes because they allow themselves to be limited by the negative expectations of others, sometimes because they feel that they don't have the time, sometimes because they don't have a clue as to how to get started and sometimes because they are taking action to improve OTHER societal situations which they feel strongly about (they have picked another battle to fight).

Like your restatement of the situation with the lying preacher and the woman being attacked in the bar, if I were in a situation where I personally witnessed this first-hand then, yes, I would take immediate action and should certainly be held responsible if I did not. However, being one person in a world where there is so much to be done in the way of improvements, I do not feel responsible as an individual for not addressing ALL the evil in the world as long as I am continuously doing something, even in a small way, to help improve our society.

Getting involved, taking action and making a positive contribution to a cause is the key. Our complaining, discussion about the ills of the world and agreement about what is evil and what needs to be changed is a waste unless we take steps towards productive change.

I have been involved in efforts to improve many situations during my lifetime. I played a small but effective part in helping to bring the Vietnam War to an end. I played a small but effective part in helping to get the voting age changed from 21 to 18 in this country so that those who were deemed old enough to defend this country with their lives could also have a voice in this country's government. I played a much larger role in our local community by founding, organizing and overseeing a major youth recreational program, run solely by adult volunteers, which provides supervised and wholesome activities for school-aged children, giving them an alternative to the drugs, violence and crime of the streets. I got the idea when talking with a group of parents who were complaining that there was no after-school activities for the kids other than the varsity sports offered in high school and I said, "Well, then, if that's what we really want for our kids in this community, why don't we all get together and start providing the activities ourselves?" Although this was purely a local effort, eventually, this organization became a model for similar youth recrational programs which have been springing up throughout the U.S. for the past two decades.

Although I believe that it would be unreasonable to assume responsibility for ALL the "evil" in the world, I believe that we are all responsible for making positive changes in this world and that we should be held responsible if we do not at least try. That is why I am constantly involved in some sort of cause or other, even if it is in a very small, unnoticable way such as typing a mailing list. Some of the efforts which I have been involved in have been successful, some have not. The important thing to me, though, is that I take that first step (action) and that I keep trying to make a positive difference. If I do not take any action other than complaining, if I do not at least try to make a positive difference in at least one area of society at a time, then I believe that I should be held responsible.

How about you?

Oxygen

12-02-99, 03:44 AM

truestory-That sound you hear is big round of applause from my camp. I do my part in my community to curb crime, even if it means hanging out in a convenience store late at night for over an hour because the fidgety guy who walked in looked like he was going to rob the place if only that group of people (me and my friends) would leave. I watch my neighbor's yard and he watches mine.

I was inspired to take an active part in straightening things out by an old US Army recruiting poster which showed Uncle Sam and bore the caption "If Not You, Who?"

Tiassa

12-02-99, 05:27 AM

Truestory--

Is there a point at which a process grows so large that it must fundamentally change? Perhaps it's easier, say, to get a landlord to act within the law than it is the US Congress.

What I'm getting at is that when I look around at how my fellow Americans address certain problems, there's an undeclared threshold where people seem to stop using the same version of common sense.

For instance, if one person is worth human dignity at any cost, why is, "It's too expensive" the first response to almost any attempted solution to alleviating the numbers of homeless?

About two years ago my mother's boss sent her some gawdawful turkey thing in a box of dry ice for Thanksgiving. My mother hated this kind of turkey, apparently, but found it too expensive to throw away. Christmas rolled around, she had no idea what to do with it, so ... "In order to not throw it out," she took it down to the Union Gospel Mission. Please tell me why ... what surprises people most when I recount this story seems to be that I'm surprised at my mother. It's just that the world outside our individual spheres ought to be something other than a last resort.

Instead of sticking the words in quotes and calling it a psychology, I'd rather ask: What motivates the people around you to their actions? Do they perform charity, justice, or common sense merely because it is the right thing to do? Or do they have to be enticed, by fear, faith, finance, or otherwise? Sadly I see a clear majority of people among my immediate associates only settle on their own ideas of virtue as a losing gambit. It's almost like that horrid sitcom gag: when you can't con a woman, be honest and sensitive. Does the idea work there?

To illustrate the crux of it all, though, I would like to point at a snippet of your post and then offer a theoretical counterpoint: You mentioned that the organization you founded, among other things, helped point kids away from drugs. Perhaps I recall them because they were more important to me, but I remember Partnership for a Drug-Free America ads as early as the mid-80's that I knew were bogus. Consider the groups that worked to keep kids away from drugs since 1972 ... how many of them told the truth? And then, what good does it do when the kids find out you lied to them? Let me stick my own experience in here and say that there were certain drugs nobody had to lie to me about ... it was quite easy to stay away from those. Of the things my parents, teachers, and community leaders lied about, I have a vastly different perception of those things. But they tried. They really, really tried.

If a hundred-thousand good intentions glitter in the headlights as we speed to Hell in a Chevy Malibu ... does it really mean we have no brakes? Sadly, it seems like everyone's busy fighting over the radio station.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Lori

12-02-99, 03:41 PM

Tiassa,

Good questions. My opinion is that people usually do the right thing when they can no longer rationalize doing the wrong thing or nothing at all. Out of sight, out of mind comes to mind. Unless a homeless person lands on your front porch.....and even then there are plenty of rationalizations.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

truestory

12-04-99, 10:34 PM

tiassa,

Individual motivation is just that... "individual"...

Having worked with thousands of individuals, I have seen all of the motivations which you have described and more... However, I have also found that those who make the most profound "difference" in this world are those who are motivated by "doing the right thing"... They are by far, the most passionate and prolific individuals which I have had the pleasure of working with. They inevitably put forth super-human efforts in terms of hours and hard work and could never truly be adequately compensated financially for their efforts. However, they find a true sense of accomplishment when they see things through from conceptualization to reality so, in addition to the great contributions that they make, I guess it could be considered a bit "selfish" when they continue to embark on new adventures and continue to gain that dual sense of "doing the right thing" and "feeling good about it" reward over and over again. :)

Oxygen

12-04-99, 11:55 PM

Tiassa-In other words, they get turned on by the old adage: "Virtue is it's own reward."

I get high by helping people, and I mean high. It's like a drug or something. I help someone, maybe they smile and say 'thank you', maybe they don't. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is afterward my senses get funny on me. The sky seems clearer, colors seems brighter, I feel more energized, and I feel generally euphoric. It lasts well into the following day, when I "come down" from it and realize the world isn't such a trerrible place, because I can't be alone in my endeavors. If I am alone, then I get a rush out of feeling like I'm the only star in the sky. If I am not alone, then I get a rush out of being in such good company. Either way, it's rush and I encourage everybody to try it.

truestory

12-05-99, 12:05 AM

Oxygen,

I have meant to say this many times to you... Hope you don't mind... In case I haven't got around to saying it yet, "God bless you!!!" You are sooooo cool (and warm-hearted)! :)

Tiassa

12-05-99, 05:24 AM

Truestory--

Such hard-working and virtuous people I cannot doubt. Let me guess here ... they're the majority in your world, the standard. Such a place and such a people I would love to meet.

In the end I guess it's just that I'm too stupid to understand you. I mean, there's nothing you wrote in your 12/4 post that I can disagree with, but ... so what? It doesn't change the fact that these individuals are willingly participating in social decay. Nor, for that matter, does it change the fact that you and I participate as well. So I'm left with a "so, what?" feeling.

It's something like accusing Disney of conspiring to suppress entire nations because they pay their Latin laborers so poorly. Nobody at Disney is specifically thinking, "How can I screw those pathetic laborers," every morning. But twenty-nine cents an hour is still twenty-nine cents an hour, and it's still appalling. How can we possibly bring the world up to equal opportunity when the economic system we subscribe to demands a proportionate and predictable poverty class? After all, those twenty-nine cents an hour are why children's "Pocahontas" pajamas are affordable. Could your local video store afford to rent their tapes out at their current prices if their clerks were, say, paid enough to sustain themselves? How cheap would your pizza be?

And it's possible to be charitable and virtuous within that system. But it's like anything else ... if we actually did our jobs well enough, we wouldn't have jobs. So people strike moral bargains with themselves. Is it easier, or perhaps less expensive to continue to offer welfare relief, or to attempt to educate society beyond the measures that hold it hostage to economic stratification?

How about this microcosmic example? I vaguely remember the arrival of ATMs. I didn't pay attention to them until I first heard arguments over fees. When the fee was a quarter, the banks responded that they were entitled to the service charge to cover the cost of operating the machines. More recently, as various legislative bodies throughout the United States have begun looking at ATM fees, the banks argue that the three to five dollar high-end charge is "profits" that they are entitled to by the principles of free enterprise. That very simple change in how we, the people, regard things is really all I'm after. Is it miniscule? So are the cracks that bring down airplanes.

Okay ... my company raised $800,000 for charity from the employees by bribing them: raise the sum, we give you days off work. Essentially, the employees were buying their time off with their charity. And yes, people still felt good about their five dollars a month. And I would not deny them that. But they had to be offered days off work and the right to wear jeans to work in order to feel good about their five dollars a month. And maybe I'm just not as worldly as you, but I'm pretty sure this minor aspect of the behavior of 11,000 individuals isn't entirely unusual.

A mistake in a sequence of mathematical equations will repeat itself throughout the sequence. God will punish to the several generations the sins of the fathers. Genetic mutations carry on to descendant generations. What about our ideas? How many times do we make those simple kinds of bargains, and what is the total weight? And is it easier to balance them, or simply avoid them?

Getting up and going to work would be much easier if it didn't seem like a wasted effort; all of my contributions to the current economy only support its growing schism and what I consider an unacceptable lack of regard for things that can't be sold for a cash value.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

SkyeBlue

12-05-99, 11:34 PM

Tiassa -

I have to agree with a lot of what you say. Do you have any solutions, though? I don't really know what we can do. This country is so damn big, it's a big lumbering beast. Special interests and big business make the laws by buying the local congress. The people of this nation don't seem to have the same kind of power these multimillion dollar enterprises do. Unless we can somehow change the whole way this country functions, there's just not going to be any huge economic reversals. I hate to say it, but that's what I see.

My company does the same bull-crap 'buy a casual day to help charity' drives. What a coincidence that the main charity we donate to happens to be the one that our CEO is on the board of directors for. And it's a crappy special-interest charity with high administrative costs. So I know how you feel about that one.

Anybody have any solutions that will work without a revolution??

truestory

12-06-99, 05:05 AM

O.K., tiassa,

Here is the "So, what" again:

You asked:

What motivates the people around you to their actions? Do they perform charity, justice, or common sense merely because it is the right thing to do? Or do they have to be enticed, by fear, faith, finance, or otherwise?

My response, in essence, was:

Having worked with thousands of individuals, I have seen all of the motivations which you have described and more... However, I have also found that those who make the most profound "difference" in this world are those who are motivated by "doing the right thing"...

And, here is the way you twisted my response:

Such hard-working and virtuous people I cannot doubt. Let me guess here ... they're the majority in your world, the standard. Such a place and such a people I would love to meet.

Then you conclude:

In the end I guess it's just that I'm too stupid to understand you.

My conclusion:

Stupid? No... Diabolic is more like it.

"So".... tiassa. Although I don't know much more about you except that you tend to use your great intellectual gift to dwell in negative tangents...

"What"... some people do, rather than continuing to complain, point fingers and wallow in a "woe is me in this imperfect world" attitude is... they accept that although they cannot solve ALL of the world's problems, they do have the power to take "action" and to try and make a positive difference in this world, even if it is in a small way.

Now, if you want to consider these individuals to be "willing participants in social decay" by virtue of the fact that they were born and exist in today's society, by virtue of the fact that their time on this earth is limited, by virtue of the fact that they have a need to work in a compensating position to earn a living BEFORE they put in the extra volunteer effort needed to make that positive "difference" in at least one area of society, then so be it... There really is nothing to "understand" except that I disagree with you on this, big time.
As far as I am concerned, at their death, the eulogy for such individuals would be (in extreme terms, which you are sure to understand)... "They did nothing wrong. They did everything right."

(On a side note, giving you the type of ammunition you seem to enjoy using: With so much room for "improvement" in the world and so little time, if people choose to spend their precious spare moments championing such causes as godlessness in society, abortion on demand, the legalization of drugs, homosexuality, pornography, the rights of criminals before the rights of victims, etc... then I would say that they were "actively" participating in social decay by doing the devil's work.)

Not that it is important... A nice eulogy is not the goal... But since I am on the subject, I am wondering what you think might be said about you, if anything, when you die, tiassa?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 06, 1999).]

Tiassa

12-06-99, 07:54 AM

Skyeblue:

When the Chinese overran Tiananmen I declared a personal boycott of Chinese-made goods. This was ok, for a time, since most of my clothes were made elsewhere. But my parents, knowing of this boycott, took the opportunity to litter me with birthday gifts with big "Made in China" stickers on the boxes. When I was 18 I got mad at the Disney company for something. That lasted until Christmas, when my parents loaded me up with Mickey Mouse gifts. Apparently it's too hard to avoid Chinese goods to make a personal statement with my actions. Apparently my parents missed the point despite their efforts to understand. It amazed me, but hey, who am I to understand people (Eh, Truestory?)

* * * *

Truestory:

I'm actually complimented by your calling me diabolical. The word has a mysterious ring to it, implying a sense of evil genius. But evil is where we choose to find it, isn't it?

So, if I'm reading your post correctly ... It's better to subscribe quietly to an inadequate system than attempt to address the problems? You see, I'm challenging the fundamental "action" they take. I'll address your side note, here, as it's relevant to the point.

You wrote:

(On a side note, giving you the type of ammunition you seem to enjoy using: With so much room for "improvement" in the world and so little time, if people choose to spend their precious spare moments championing such causes as godlessness in society, abortion on demand, the legalization of drugs, homosexuality, pornography, the rights of criminals before the rights of victims, etc... then I would say that they were "actively" participating in social decay by doing the devil's work.)

* Godlessness in society is the fault of the churches. Strange, since it's, oh, THEIR JOB to be godly. But this, I understand is a subjective point, and though you don't go to "mainstream" churches, you sure do seem to like them for something that's not good enough for you.

* Abortion on demand is, I admit, a problem. I would like to see better education in general, sex education, and the removal of church-based social stigma against human sexuality. That, right there, would clean up a lot of the mess. And then we could start hammering out the economic problems that contribute to rampant reproduction as well.

* Social turmoil surrounding homosexuality is unnecessary. It's only religious provocateurs who keep the situation complicated. When they shut up, "gay chic" becomes less annoying because it's less of a buzz-issue in the media/entertainment world.

* Pornography's not really my issue. I defend its place when it comes up, mostly because I'm tired of the undereducated anti-sex hysteria that surrounds putting it on a page.

* You make the assumption that I would put criminal rights before "victim" rights. I actually value every person's rights. There are two issues at stake with that, as far as the idea of putting criminals before victims goes: A) Defendant is innocent until proven guilty ... it kills me that so many people talk about "criminal" rights when referring to the accused; and B) without basic "human" rights, there's no point to prisons ... we might as well kill every person with a jailable offense (and right now that includes parking tickets). If you're going to assume my priorities, please take the time to consider that I am not working within your perceived frame of reference. In other words, I don't use the same yardstick. "Criminal" is subject to more considerations than you seem to make.

* Drug legalization: If the anti-drug people didn't lie so darn much, drug legalization would have occurred years ago and we wouldn't have to argue the point.

I might remind you that "championing" causes goes both ways. If the "holier-than-thou" crowd didn't pick the fights, they wouldn't have to have them. Maybe that simple paradox is one of my biggest problems with the world. That so much of the "help" we think we're giving actually causes the problems we seek to solve. The way things are, and the way things have been, is wrong. A change in the attitude at large would eliminate so much of the "championing" you find so distasteful.

And I would hope that my friends would speak of me the way they do now. But it's a truism that you can't believe such things of someone so diabolical.

So, I could give my money or time to a religious charity, and spread the evil seed. Or I could stand in a soup kitchen and remind myself I'm luckier than these people. Or I could develop a new idea that has the possibility of tackling the grander difficulty. But that kind of hope is just a waste of time, isn't it?

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 06, 1999).]

truestory

12-06-99, 10:09 PM

Yes, tiassa, evil and darkeness exists in this world... So does goodness and light... They are all here in this world for us to see... They are also aspects of human nature which we actively choose to participate in or not to participate in.

So, if I'm reading your post correctly ... It's better to subscribe quietly to an inadequate system than attempt to address the problems? You see, I'm challenging the fundamental "action" they take.

No, tiassa, you are not reading my post correctly... Or, perhaps I am not getting your drift... It seems that you lend more credibility to complaining and doing nothing than to taking action which can make a positive difference in this world... You originally asked why nobody does anything to address the ills of the world... My point was that a good many people DO take action.

Again, of course, as individuals we cannot address ALL of the ills in this world... It would be "unreasonable" to think that one could... That is why it is important that we choose our battles wisely. Take a real, live, woman named "Bea" for example. For a full quarter of a century after retiring, she spent every day, seven days a week, soliciting food from the public and she personally cooked and served nutritious meals each evening for hundreds of people in a large city. That's more than twenty-five YEARS of meals for the poor and indigent of that urban community who, otherwise, would have gone hungry. But, sarcastically speaking in tiassaisms, let us not forget all the lies she told and the problems that she created with her "holier-than-thou, do-gooder attitude!" She should be smacked, huh, tiassa? Give me a break! What she created, in addition to healthy meals for the homeless and hungry each evening, was a network of people who you speak of with contempt... business people and other "do-gooders" in "Bea's" community who were able meet in the common dining area to brainstorm with each other and help with shelter, clothing, medical attention and employment for their poorer neighbors. Consequently, she helped people, she provided motivation for others to help people to help themselves. Could she have addressed the problem another way? Sure. However, she went beyond complaining and finger-pointing, chose a tough battle to fight... "hunger" in her community... and she did the "best" that she knew how for her fellow human beings. In other words, she took "action" to make a positive difference in this world.

There are many "Beas" in this world tiassa... Unfortunately, so many people, like yourself, tend to focus on the "negative" in this world to the point of disregarding and/or overlooking the "positive".

As far as my side note, I would like to point out that I was not assuming your views on those matters, nor was I attributing the championing of such causes to you, personally, tiassa. It was midly interesting, however, to see you jump into that subject matter like a pig jumps into sh*t, though.

I mentioned godlessness and, once again, you brought in "mainstream churches"... Snore... Sorry if this offends you but, your continued inability to discern the difference between God and earthly churches and your obsessive need to stereotype anyone who believes in God into "defenders of the mainstream church" is quite monotonous and boring, to say the least. Not being diabolical or evil, I realize that my views bore you, also, tiassa. Let's just say that we don't share the same view of the world in terms of it being macabre.

As far as my distaste for the championing of the rights of criminals before the rights of victims, for the record, I do not consider "the accused" to be a criminal. I hope that this statement clears up at least one misunderstanding up in your mind.

I agree with your statement about "hope"... without action, it is a waste of time. Again, that is why we need to go the extra mile to pull ourselves up out of the "pig-stye" which you perceive the world to be.

There is something that I am wondering about, tiassa. On the one hand, you complain bitterly that nothing is being done about all the "evil" which you supposedly perceive in this world, yet you seem to enjoy wallowing in evil.. Seems quite contradictory to say the least... Or, is that WHY you support the "do nothing" way of life? Because, in truth, you actually enjoy the wallowing?

Which brings me to another question... What, exactly, is the "truism" that would be uttered by your "friends" at your funeral if you were to die today, tiassa?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 06, 1999).]

Tiassa

12-06-99, 11:14 PM

Truestory:

* "My point was that a good many people DO take action." What if that action is merely feelgood? Sure, people address the ills of the world. But consider, as a parallel: When I was in high school, a standard question asked of suicidal teens was, "Why do you want to abandon your family, and hurt the people who love you?" Yes, I agree ... this counselor or peer is attempting to reconcile an ill within their world. But what happens, as was usually the case in my day, when the family is the source of the aggravation that leads to the ultimate challenge of the soul? The intervening party, with all good intention, has just presented a paradox which implies to the lamenting mind that it somehow owes allegiance to the source of its pain. It's a nice attempt, but a null result. So I see a fine line between the best intentions and the worst result. What aspect we seem to not be meeting on is simply: What if that "good" is actually evil?

* "It seems you lend more credibility to complaining and doing nothing...." You know, governments are a human institution. I offer you this idea: from the first English invasions of Ireland, the Irish complained that they were being exploited for economic and military purposes. Now, in 1100 CE, that's a tough argument to get away with. By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was widely accepted around the world that the British ran Ireland and that the economic and social processes there were right. The whole time, the Irish complained. But the world saw their revolutions as undignified and inappropriate. And still they complained. And in the modern day, with little progress made, one of the chief ideas I encountered when I became aware of the Irish situation was that the Irish complaint has no merit, because all they've ever done is complain. Conservatives, in financial arguments, believe they know the most about finance merely because they, by the nature of their life and political philosophies, earn more. Gun owners think they're right because they can just shoot anyone who objects to their getting drunk and target-shooting in the backyard. And so you now stand with your idea of people doing good. Look at all their hard work ... OK, fine. But the inability of those who hold such ideas to reconcile even the simplest paradoxes of their acts describes a state of fear directed toward those paradoxes, reminiscent of any idea or person living amid its own deceptions.

If I were to point to the murder of Dr. David Gunn ... okay, I withdraw the extremity of the killers, and do not consider the quantity of dead fetuses in his garage typical of his kind of person. But you never know; after all, I'm such an extreme and terrible judge of character. But the killer worked at a Christian halfway house for pregnant teens. My problem with this was that, in exchange for this "charity", the girls were expected to perform cleaning and maintenance chores that any good doctor would tell you is bad for pregnancy. They were required to attend anti-abortion protests and to picket. They were required to participate in the Christian faith. Some charity, eh? Now, I reiterate: I am aware that Dr Gunn's killers were not typical among Christians--they are not specifically the point. But how extreme am I being? Is this the only operation of its sort in the country? I'm quite sure it isn't. What wolves we disguise as charitable lambs in this culture is beyond simply disturbing. And, because it's important to me ... do you see the "logical device" at work in the halfway house? That set of justifications, that allows a political labor camp to be called charity ... you really don't think that's common among the people?

Some general considerations here:

I am very, very aware that you aren't part of the churches. However, you are the one who brought up ideas like homosexuality and abortion. And it remains clear to me that the American Christian institutions are presenting some of the biggest obstacles to making this "cause" go away. So, I'm sorry if it offends you, but the situation is much bigger than your distaste for the churches.

Please do not resort to such ideas as "All you do is complain." Hey, if the people whose logic sounds a lot like yours could have answered the questions then instead of now, the ideas wouldn't have become complaints. Such accusations are the last resort of the crumbling wicked.

In order for a pig to jump into sh*t, you have to leave sh*t to jump into. Given the amount you're spewing, you can expect at least some people to jump right in with shovels and try to clear the way for those less inclined to defecate on new ideas.

As to your last paragraph ... If it turns out that I support a "do-nothing" way of life, it would be because I can no longer participate in the grand failure that is the present condition. And someone who is as thoughtful, apparently intelligent, and non-extreme as you like to think of yourself ought to know one thing about "evil": It's all in what you call important. If God tells you to worry about who's screwing who, or smoking what, who is going to feed the hungry?

Consider this idea: A disease is wiping out your population. It sprang up in a section of society you only know as bad because of your bigotries. Let's be specific, in fact. Gays and AIDS. President Reagan had the best intentions, I'm sure. His solution to the AIDS problem:

* Call it the "gay measles"
* Do nothing to stop it because it is the result of homosexual sinfulness.
* Advocate the less practical preventative measures based on the fact that you don't like what other people do with their own time. (Abstinence v. condom?)
* Never use the term "Human Immunodeficiency Virus"
* Wait until the sixth year of the presidency to use the term "AIDS".

But Ronald Reagan assured us he was concerned about AIDS, and wanted to control or stop it. I put the questions, then, to you:

* Did Reagan have good intentions? (Speculate if you like, I'm aware we can't know.)
* Did his actions reflect someone with good intentions?

Regardless of what he intended, his result was evil by my figuring. After all, his strategy worked about as well as the Drug War, which is to say Made Things Worse.

So tell me ... what about Reagan's idea was NOT "do-nothing"? Oh, that's right, his goodness and rightness proactively complicated the situation. That, I suppose, isn't "nothing".

In fact, you're right. AIDS is such a problem that I want to fix it. Tomorrow I'm going to go out and beat up a gay person and tell him he's wrong. Then, in the name of God, I'm going to work to make sure EVERY intravenous needle exchange is shut down. THAT oughta make AIDS go away. Right? I mean, I would hate to sit by and do nothing, eh?

Hey, it's your idea of progress. Feel good while doing nothing to solve the problem, at best.

Or, we could get off the gays' backs. We could provide addicts with clean needles and the opportunity to stop before they do die. We could tell children the real truth about drugs so they don't assume it's ALL a lie.

One other distinction ... is it charity to give a quarter to a guy who asks for it on the street? Hell, I call it decency. Certainly, it's better to teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. But you either run out of fish or end up making it too complicated to get a license. So in the meantime, comfort and smiles make better sense than patronizing and moralism.

Keep on filling the wallow ... maybe next time I'll try a jacknife or a gainer. But I will always have my trusty shovel when wandering through such a rhetorical sty.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory

12-07-99, 12:06 AM

tiassa,

What if that action is merely feelgood? Sure, people address the ills of the world. But consider, as a parallel: When I was in high school, a standard question asked of suicidal teens was, "Why do you want to abandon your family, and hurt the people who love you?" Yes, I agree ... this counselor or peer is attempting to reconcile an ill within their world. But what happens, as was usually the case in my day, when the family is the source of the aggravation that leads to the ultimate challenge of the soul? The intervening party, with all good intention, has just presented a paradox which implies to the lamenting mind that it somehow owes allegiance to the source of its pain. It's a nice attempt, but a null result. So I see a fine line between the best intentions and the worst result. What aspect we seem to not be meeting on is simply: What if that "good" is actually evil?

Hah! I now see the need for the rhetorical shovel!

Like you said, you can see evil anytime you choose.

Did you ever think of the possibility that posing the question would open the child up to confessing to the counselor their belief that their family did "not" love them based on their experiences at home? That perhaps this would open a door to prevent future "abuse" if that were the case? That your perceived paradox could actually have a different result than the "only one," the null, that you speak of?

In reality, I have seen and heard of similar situations where such probing questions have actually set the final stage for a suicidal person to open up, to be heard, for their fellings to finally be validated enabling them to move on and make positive changes in thier life, despite the raw deal that they got at home.

The worst result could certainly be considered a failure, however, I certainly would not consider the question which is described above as "evil," regardless of the outcome. So, yes, we don't meet in that respect.

By the way... Aside from the fact that there might have been a better-worded question for the counsellor to ask, what else would you suggest? Do nothing?

If not, you seem to be going around in circles here?

I'd rather not discuss Reagan in much detail if you don't mind. Suffice it to say that I perceive his presidency to have been a farce.

tiassa,

Our intellectual relationship is beginning to remind me of that between my brother and I when we were teenagers. We were very close, best of friends, until the time he went camping and was introduced to some mind-altering drugs. When he came back from that trip, in body, his mind was no longer the same. Although we lived in the same household, had the same parents, sat at the same kitchen table for dinner every night... his perception of every imperfection that my parents had, every word that they said and everything that they did was "evil"... in his eyes, they did not love him... Why were they like "this" when they could have just as easily been like "that"?... Why did they say "this" when they could have said "that"?... Why did they react "this way" when they could have reacted "that way"?... He concluded that they must be "bad people"... Living in the same household, I concluded that they were the same human beings, albeit imperfect, as they were before his camping trip and I loved and accepted them for who they were, faults and all... The change in my brother was the saddest, most sickening, heart-wrenching thing that I have ever witnessed.

It is a fact that his perception was altered by a chemical imbalance in his brain... He was a suicidal teen whose perception of his family had been altered by drugs... the probing questions gave counselors and doctors better insight into what the cause of his pain was... It took many years of therapy for him to get to a healthy mental state... approximately half of his life was wasted in a mental hell... all because of the LSD which was put in the wine and passed around the campfire.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 06, 1999).]

Tiassa

12-07-99, 07:38 PM

Truestory:

Two comments for starters.

* I am aware of the psychological device you're referring to when your brother became evil. And I think it's valid of a sort, but there's something consider here: Many people hold fundamental questions within them, and when something frees up their inhibitions, there is often difficulty translating deeply felt ideas to words; the inability of a family to be patient with those developing questions, the need for the family to draw firm lines around such ideas can reinforce a sense of paranoia that I must admit requires some personal adjustment to accommodate.

* I think in this case you're looking to your prejudices to support your statements about drugs. I'm curious what your exposure is here, because your perspective reminds me of someone whose drug knowledge centers around one or two reckless people who bombed themselves into the Earth with their drug of choice, as well as a lifetime of nefarious propaganda. So what I would ask here is twofold: What dosage was in how much wine? 250 micrograms of clean LSD would hold me pleasantly for several hours. 500 would push my ability to enjoy the ride. 750 would keep me up for eight to ten hours, begging for the buzz to stop. A milligram would keep me rolling for a day, at least. After all, it's almost the same idea as getting drunk: 1 beer pleasant, 2 jovial, 3 intoxicated, 4 still doing well, 5 hangover, 6 bad hangover, 7-12 ... I'm entering the power-vomit zone. It's all a balance of what you want to get from it. Oh, second fold ... if you're going to say that your brother didn't know the LSD was in the wine, well ... then it becomes an issue of people and not drugs.

Otherwise: I'm glad you see the Reagan presidency as a farce. But please don't dismiss the example ... after all, I would be more interested if you felt his administration's good intentions were well-played ... that would be a chance to understand a version of logic that seems to show the worst in people (Reagan's logic, not yours ....)

And I'll do better than speculate what would be a better quesiton for a counselor to ask. I'll tell you exactly how I handled that specific situation: When school and private counselors had failed, what seemed most needed was easy to provide: Shut up, sit back to back in the middle of the room and wait for the Demons to either come springing from the shadows or not. Listen as she rants. Hold close when she needs. And when the morning comes, remind her to smile at the sunrise because as far as anyone can prove, it's all for her. And you know what? It worked ... it bought us time for the professional counselors to come in and screw it up again with all their good intentions. So we did it again, with only a little variation (we sat on a sofa all night). After a while, it was easy. I went on to college, she went on to college, and we had bought off enough time for her to get things straight in her head before she tried to explain them to other people. My parents seemed to dislike the strategy at the time because I was only 17 when I jumped into the deep end, and it took nearly two years before I could step out of the frame and let the scene play for itself. Even today the folks'll insist that certain things are more important than human life. If it helps your frame of reference, though, the clear majority of those more-important-than-life ideas have to do with money and the self, and how to make the two harmonious. I didn't pretend to get it.

Of course, we could just go on quoting textbooks and statistics. It's worked well enough so far.

My father once told me that the fundamental change in society I seek will come about when necessary because the people are literally starving to death in the streets. Gee, wouldn't it be nice to try to get it right without that kind of revolution? Wouldn't it be nice to try not because it's the endgame, but because it's a chance at progress?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 07, 1999).]

truestory

12-08-99, 02:48 AM

tiassa,

First, I never considered my brother to be "evil" - rather, he was "ill"... and his illness was caused by a sustained chemical/physical reaction to a hallucinogenic drug. The way it was explained to me (if I remember correctly) was that, due to a unknown predisposed physical intolerance to the drug, the LSD caused a sustained chemical reaction in his body which created a sustained imbalance in the positive and negative electrical impulses within his brain, thus, causing a sustained distortion in his perception of reality. Although I appreciate what I perceive to be your well-meaning intentions, this was not a case of a drug-induced freedom of inhibitions, which I am very familiar with. This was a severe illness which cost him nearly two decades of his life, in and out of institutions, going from relatives' homes to friends' homes and back again, with no fixed address, living in the streets at times, experiencing manifestations of nearly every psychological disorder known to the medical community.

I applaud you sincerely, tiassa, for what you did for your friend... Not only out of empathy, but also, because you put in the extra effort needed to make a positive difference in someone's life. Although your friend's pain was most likely very severe, tiassa, after "months" of being there, truly listening to the torture of his soul, hearing the screams, seeing and sharing my brother's agony, physically holding him in the darkness and giving all the love that one human being is capable of giving to another and finally having to accept the reality that my efforts were not truly helping... I sincerely wish that my brother's condition was, relatively speaking, as simple as the psychological condition which you imagine. Although I now realized that only professionals were equipped to deal with the severity of my brother's illness in a manner that could facilitate his functioning in this world, I do not consider my failed "good intentions" (or those of others who tried to help him) as being "evil".

Second, other than a brief comment about the championing of the legalizatin of drugs, I don't believe that, thus far, I have made any statements which I feel the need to support... with or without prejudice?

However... Since you asked... Unfortunately, my exposure has been relatively great. I grew up in the Bronx, New York. During my teenage years, drugs hit the street like a thunderstorm with no warning. There was no escaping getting drenched and feeling wet and wild was readily accepted by most in the community, including the police... Although there were those who were arrested for drug-related violent crimes, I do not recall anyone having been arrested for "possession"... All drugs may as well have been legal in the Bronx at that time... All you had to do was pick a drug... any drug... alcohol, marijuana, snappers, amphetamines, barbituates, mescaline, LSD, heroine... a drug of choice was available to all for a small fee... however, the cost in terms of lives of people, some so young that they had barely even truly begun to live, was astronomical.

Like my brother, many received drug-induced sentences to mental institutions because of unknown predispositions in their reactions to drugs... others were not so lucky as they paid the ultimate price through overdoses and drug-induced hallucinogenic episodes which caused them to take their own lives or the lives of others... Teenagers and young adults were found dead in their bathtubs with needles still sticking out of their arms... or dead in their beds because they stopped breathing after taking the barbituates... You sometimes would wake up in the morning to learn that yet another person was found splattered on the sidewalk after jumping off the roof (or pushing someone else off the roof or out of a window) due to the hallucinogenic distortion in their brain which told them that they could fly... Other teens were found to have been murdered in various ways at the hands of other teens who were so out of it that they thought it would be "cool, man" to see, for example, someone "really hanging" from a pipe in the basement where they "hung out" to get out of the cold in the winter... Suicide was rampant... You would see so many "siezures" that, after a while, you would start to think that they were normal.

Third... Enough said... I could go on about this for hours. I am sure that you have an anti-thesis for every bit of drug-induced anguish which I have experienced and witnessed in my lifetime. Believe me, I have heard it all before. However, this time, tiassa, I'd really rather not hear it. With many friends and family long gone at what I consider to be far too early an age due to the negative effects of drugs and alcohol and with more than half my extended family in some sort of recovery program or other (thank God), in this case, I'd rather hold onto my "prejucial" position against what is currently considered illegal drugs and controlled substances. As far as I'm concerned, alcohol is already too much for this society to handle adequately.

Thanks anyway. I'll address your other question concerning Reagan at another time.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 07, 1999).]

Tiassa

12-08-99, 05:12 AM

Truestory ....

I'm at a loss because yes, you're right that there are terrible places associated with drugs and alcohol. And it's not that I would minimize or dismiss your sense of loss, but I do need to ask ....

The drugs themselves are to blame?

You make a good point ... "currently considered illegal drugs." Well, black people could once be described as "currently three-fifths of a human being". They changed that law because it was clearly wrong. Women were once considered "currently too stupid to vote". Yes, drugs are a little more complicated a subject than who votes or whether a person is a whole person. But the reason drugs are "currently considered illegal" largely rests in greed. Until 1974, or thereabout, much drug regulation was a commercial issue. I might remind you, for instance, that marihuana became illegal in 1937. Okay ... nylon is introduced at a time whien the Department of Commerce is looking into setting aside federal funds for hemp decorticators (1936). Nylon makes rope. Hemp makes rope. The law that made marihuana de facto illegal was the 1937 Marihuana Tax Stamp Act. Do you remember the Bush administration forbidding the use of marihuana in cancer patients? A pharmaceutical house had come out with yet another synthetic concoction to replace Marinol, which was THC extract. Other drugs have their complications, but the only reason most "currently considered illegal" drugs are regarded as such has nothing to do with crime, chaos, or the decay of social morals. More and more, it seems that keeping drugs illegal is keeping a healthy black market bolstered with a very healthy chaos. And yes, I'm quite aware of marihuana's unique position among illegal drugs. But how are we going to make junkies want to leave the chaos behind by throwing them in prison? How are we going to keep young users from dying if they're sharing needles and using bad stuff cut by unscrupulous people? You know, the GOP, is now manipulating elections over needle exchange ... the day before Colorado's state legislature was to actually vote on endorsing IV needle exchange, the GOP told its people they would all hang out to dry in the next election if they supported the exchange. What is so important about doing the right thing that they can't?

1.7 million people in federal prisons at the end of 1997 ... 85% of those for drug-related crimes; of that proportion, 3/4 were for distribution or possession ... hardly violent. Those are Dept. of Justice's numbers.

652,000+ drug arrests in the US in 1998. Again, we see similar proportions on the distribution and possession. That equals one arrest for possession or distribution a minute in 1998. Why is there so much violent drug-related crime? It might (seriously) have something to do with having no bedspace for the violent criminals.

Again ... it is not my intent to minimize past experience. But I would beg you to consider why the Bronx was in chaos, and whether the Bronx was bad because the kids did drugs or whether the kids did drugs because the Bronx was in chaos.

There are a number of anti-theses I could make to any number of things you say about the specific psychology of your brother's decline. But I obviously haven't nearly enough resources to begin such an assessment. If I might ... [this is argumentative] ... I could say ... teenager? I know the questions your brother was asking, or at least as you described. But my fundamental psychology changed when I was 13 or 14 in the form of what might have been a stress-induced hallucination (yadda, yadda, yadda). The point here is that I can't assert that this happened to your brother because I don't know him, and didn't know him before or during the transition.

But neither do you know ten- to twenty-million pot-smokers, or the thousands upon thosands of cokeheads or smack junkies. And you're prohibiting them access to their bodies with your best intentions based on your own set of observations. Those are valid but ...

Were I to make the same set of observations based on my own drug experiences or those of the people close to me, well ... I think certain controlled substances are great. I don't like cocaine because it costs too much for what it does. I think the world could use a billion less caffeine addicts. Although I smoke cigarettes ... nicotine's a worse idea than a few illegal drugs I know. But I have a personal thing against methamphetamine, and thus against Ecstasy. Clean LSD has treated me very well in cautious, limited use. Psilocybin's been great ... in fact, the only bad experience I ever had there was because my girlfriend wanted to argue that I was paying too much attention to other people (funny, me and paying attention to people is abstract enough an idea when I'm "sober"). Marihuana's been better to me than I can express ... sure it costs too much but hey, that'll be taken care of soon when it's legal. What I'm getting at is that my experience with "currently considered illegal" drugs beats the heck out of my two-year coffee dependency that landed me in the hospital (well, it was coincidental internal bleeding with no impact or detectable ulcer, stacked up with undue psychological stress and dehydration due to coffee intake) or my eight-month stand playing the inside of a beer glass.

Thus I would conclude that we've got it backwards, and that certain "currently considered illegal" drugs should be legal while we throw alcohol and caffeine out the window for about sixty years. Hey, let 'em drink gasoline if they're dumb enough to think it gets 'em high. But I've had a great time on drugs ... and those observations are as valid as yours.

And that's where I draw a seemingly arbitrary line. I think caffeine addiction is a pain in the butt ... I take far too much verbal abuse from people who simply haven't had their coffee fix yet. And so, I guarantee, do you. But I won't tell people they can't drink coffee. Once I found out the truth about drugs, the decisions were easy: this can kill me, this won't ... this can kill me, this won't. But I think making certain drugs illegal is exactly the problem. If my observations concerning drugs are valid as well, then where does that leave us? My way people make their own decisions. Your way and people go to jail for stupid reasons and children don't learn how to protect themselves without being scared senseless. That last bit's hard, I know it. But I'm trying to make a very important point about it: You would prohibit people because of your experiences. I would rather let people do what they will so we can get along with more important things.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 08, 1999).]

truestory

12-08-99, 03:32 PM

tiassa,

I knew my brother before, during and after his "transition". I also knew "The Bronx" (at least the expanded neighborhood I grew up in) before, during and after its transition. In both cases, without a doubt, drugs caused the chaos and demise.

We don't always need to experience things personally to know what is good and what is bad. It's O.K. to learn from the mistakes of others at times because in the course of learning certain things through first-hand experience, like drugs, many have killed themselves in the process of "learning". That is why it is O.K. to draw lines and say no sometimes to both your children and society in general.

For example, your child, who is in middle school, comes home and tells you about the group of high school kids that he came across in the alley. They were playing with a loaded gun. Based on what your child tells you, you realize that these teens were playing Russian Roulette! You say, "Believe me, for your own good, son, stay away from them and do not, under any circumstances, place a loaded revolver to your head and pull the trigger. You will surely die." Your son perceives you to be a "liar" because he has just seen a kid do it and nothing happened to him. So, you go on to explain that what that kid did was very dangerous, that the kid was lucky, but that in most cases, pulling the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at your head would kill you. Well guess what? Your kid actually saw three kids do it and nothing happened to them!!! (To him, these high school kids are as cool as everyone in middle school says they are.) You try and try to explain to your child about the reality and the danger of death which such an act brings about. Based upon what your kid witnessed first hand, there is no way that he is going to believe you. (Besides, all the kids at school say that parents are just a bunch of old farts who tell you lies and really don't know anything!) Do you then say, "O.K., then, go and do what you will... Learn the truth through your own first-hand experience. Put that gun to YOUR head and see what happens! Oh, and by the way... Good luck, kid. And just in case you're not one of the lucky ones... it's been nice knowing you." I think not. I think you TRY to educate your child. If he doesn't get it or refuses to get it, you ask him to trust your judgement. You probably tell him that you love him (and you mean it). Although he might not be able to understand you, you are telling him these things for his own good because you want to keep him safe and out of harm's way. If he cannot bring himself to trust you because his perception has been distorted by what he saw in the alley and by what he has been hearing at school, you draw the line and you say no. If the next day, you find out that he actually participated in the game of Russian Roulette and survived, you would probably counsel him again and discipline him in some way so that he gets the message before he kills himself.

Referencing your own examples of the use of legal substances such as alcohol, caffiene and nicotine, it should be evident to you that people in general cannot handle "feel good" substances in a responsible and harmless way. In addition, as you pointed out, the harmful affects of addiction usually flow beyond the boundaries of "self" and into the lives of others and the society in which we all live. If it is harm that individual people ultimately want to do to themselves, there's currently plenty of ammunition out there for them to do the job.

I do agree that treating the drug user is a better alternative than prison. I also applaud clean needle exchange programs. My favorites are those that also have trained counselors available for the addicts who might one day walk in and say that they have decided to pull themselves up and out of the "Valley of Death" and need some help. However, at the same time, I see drug distribution (dealing) as a violent crime... It is a big lie, offering nothing more than a false, temporary sense of well-being... although not the only one of its kind, it usurps (an illegal) profit by destroying and taking the LIVES of our fellow human beings... I have witnessed this violent attack against society first-hand...

In conclusion, I think that we can agree on the fact that there are certain things which individuals NEED to survive which many do not have. Illegal drugs is NOT one of them. (If you are addicted, of course, you would believe otherwise). So, in my efforts to "help" this world, I think I'll continue to concentrate on helping to provide some of the basics such as food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, jobs for the unemployed and medical assistance for those in need before I start worrying about legalizing drugs or the supposed raw deal that drug dealers are getting (by virtue of their being in prison before every murderer and armed robber is found, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Oh, how unfair life can be!). You can make the "legalization of drugs" and "keeping drug dealers out of prison until all other violent criminals are incarcerated" your contribution if you'd like. :)

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 09, 1999).]

Tiassa

12-10-99, 11:09 PM

Truestory ....

There's a hair or two to split, but I'm following your most recent post a little better than the last few.

But we're back to a fundamental perspective problem. Quite simply, there is a difference between Russian roulette and drug use. We could start with the odds ... 1 in 6? Or, you could take the child out to a field or shooting range and put a bullet into a piece of wood or blow apart vegetable matter to demonstrate the force of a firearm. "See that? Imagine your head. Bang, splat." With drugs the odds are less definitive. On the one hand, a young basketball star just drafted to the Celtics takes his first line of coke ever, and dies of heart failure. To the other, I once held a job where the man I replaced had died suddenly of shock related to his being allergic to bird droppings. There is not one set of biochemical processes that makes a person allergic to birdsh*t, and another for cocaine. Take your kid out to show him drugs, you're still smashing an egg with a skillett. "Look at the homeless man ... that's what drugs will get you." You might as well say, "Look at the theft, that's what a [derogatory racial designation] gets you." At the moment of that statement, one cannot offer any support other than their parental authority.

The reason drug legalization becomes incredibly important is that even DARE's own data demonstrates a connection between the drug war and drug-related crime. What was so important about the 1972 Bureau of Narcotics report to Congress regarding marihuana that it had to be scrapped, the Bureau dissolved and replaced with the Drug Enforcement Agency? Could it be that the study demonstrated that marihuana was less of a major health risk than pollution in an urban society? Perhaps it was the assertion that the majority of drug-related violent crime only exists because the drug is illegal--eliminate the black market and you eliminate its share of the peripheral miseries it supports. Maybe, just maybe, the effort to keep kids/people away from drugs is creating all of the reasons the effort advocates? I just can't imagine Bob from the local liquor store pimping out women who want to buy legalized pot.

You know, school prayer advocates point to Supreme Court decisions separating church and state as a major downturn in the social structure. It isn't so much that I expect you to agree with that position, but it is a common one in society and worth addressing. Because I could dredge up my own statistics and point to the fact that, until 1937, human beings lived in relatively close proximity with certain plants. I think I can show that America, at least, has gone downhill as regards its social values since then. To apply a principle fairly, I could say it is the removal of marihuana from society that has contributed to our downfall. (I'm just getting after the principle of how people construct their arguments ... we both know too much was wrong too many years ago to hold the Supreme Court or Harry Anslinger responsible for social decay.)

It's a frustrating thing because certain substances, currently illegal, should be regulated anywhere between tobbacco and prescription degrees. But people won't hear of it because they're illegal. But the reasons why these substances are illegal are disingenuous. I might remind you that the bulk of literature calling for the end of Alcohol Prohibition concerned itself with the rise of gangster violence supporting an alcoholic black market.

You know, there's a guy serving 25 to life for the illegal possession of a single Tylox pill. 350mg acetamenophen, 50 mg coedine. 25 years. The reason for this is simply that drug laws reflect no other law enforcement effort in the nation's history. Consider for a second your constitutional rights:

* An officer conducts an search made legal by a DEA profile (there are enough of these to cover every single American and every tourist or immigrant coming into our borders). He finds in your pocket less than a gram of marihuana, and finds in the jacket around your waist a plastic pill-bottle containing a single Tylox. The Tylox belongs to your associate, who is present with you. In fact, the jacket belongs to your associate, and their ID is inside the jacket. The court concluded the following: Minor in Possession 12 years prior; marihuana possession; opiate possessin (we'll get to that); intent to distribute (you cannot defend yourself against this charge); unauthorized possession of a prescription drug. Okay, that's the rap. You ready for the reasons? Marihuana possession: mandatory minimum--the court cannot consider specific weight, cannot consider circumstances of use. Opiate possession: synthetic opiates are considered the same as street heroin for sentencing purposes, despite the objections of the medical community. Intent to distribute: most states have distribution laws--if you are convicted carrying an illegal drug in more than a single container, you are automatically subject to a distribution charge ... there is no defense for this allowed, which seems to suspend due process. Unauthorized possession of a prescription drug: apparently, the associate (suspect's girlfriend) could not persuade the court to believe she had taken off her jacket inside a rock concert and asked her boyfriend to tie it around her waist. The bulk of his sentence, though, surrounds three issues: an MIP when he was in high school ... strangely, even in New Jersey, where he was convicted, that MIP would not be considered if he was on trial for armed robbery; the distribution charge, which I've explained the problems with; and then there's something called carrier weight laws. Okay ... 350mg of acetamenophen + 50 mg of coedine ... what does that equal? Tylenol and 50 mg of coedine. Unless you're under arrest. Weigh the whole weight of the pill plus the container it's in ... synthetic medicinal opiates as heroin for sentencing purposes equals Intent to Distribute in excess of a gram of raw heroin. His story, and several others, are available at Families Against Mandatory Minimums, http://www.famm.org .

Now, my question is ... look at how much of the above logic seems exceptional. All of that twisting of reality to nail one guy with some bud and a high-powered analgesic. And we perform this mission while all of those starving crime victims go on starving amid violent crime.

* Peter McWilliams was arrested by the feds for conspiracy to grow marihuana. Under California Prop 215, he legally purchased growing equipment to raise marihuana to assist his fight ... he's fighting AIDS. He was arrested for DONATING his equipment to the California Cannabis Buyers' Co-Op a week after Janet Reno announced that the feds would ignore 215 and continue to arrest medicinal distributors in California. After his arrest, he was denied the full course of his AIDS and cancer medications for four days, and denied an attorney during that whole time. As a final insult, however, the judge has decided that the jury will not be allowed to hear evidence or arguments concerning medical marijuana, and the jury will not be allowed to know that Mr McWilliams has AIDS. And all of this to fight the good fight. http://www.drcnet.org is following the story, as well as a few legalization-oriented websites.

Again ... what GOOD is being accomplished here? These are not what I would consider isolated incidents ... it is the state of the Drug War. Did you know that there are enough profiles to give police the right to search your person and possessions merely because you exited an airport? There's one for if you leave by taxi, one if you leave by bus, one if you leave by private car, one if you leave by rented limo, one if you leave on foot. There's a profile that suspends search-and-seizure rights if you stop in the airport and call someone on a pay phone. Cel phone? They wrote ANOTHER profile.

Consider this idea: the majority of the evil you see in "illegal" drugs comes from the fact that they are illegal. Period. The whole thing's a mess. The status quo should allow people to hurt themselves senseless if there's a question about the ethics of prohibition. We don't really know the full effect of evil music or sexy TV on kids ... I don't see the antiexpressionist view very clearly, but I can no more say that there is no effect at all than they could say there is. But, since we don't know, does that mean we should ban free expression? After all, we don't know how much our words are hurting ourselves or the people around us. If we invoke the rules of the Drug War while we figure out if it was Miami Vice that turned kids bad or maybe poor communication, parental hypocrisy, or other factors ... well, we'd have to ban television. It's a ridiculous state of affairs. The War Against Drugs perpetuates itself.

And you're right ... there are more important things ... but you did remind me that you founded an organizaiton helped keep kids away from drugs. That might be the most demonstrable example I've ever had handed to me. What was important about that was that most people in the 80's who fought youth drug use LIED to them. And that's what I was wondering about in your case, whether you employed the truth or the party line. Consider a Partnership for a Drug Free America spot in the early nineties: "How to tell if your child is on marihuana or cocaine". Funny, the "symptoms" they described resembled the pubescent chaos quite typical to developing teens. One of the "symptoms" was: "If your child's appetite diminishes suddenly", while another was, "If your child's appetite increases suddenly." They mixed the two drugs' "symptoms" in order to create a blanket image that showed any normal teenager could possibly be on drugs. And what's worse is they're separate "symptoms". I do not get frenetic when stoned. Robin Williams said of stoners: "Guess what, Captain Herbalife! You've just macramed your ass to the sofa!" That was not the case when I tried cocaine. Characteristic behavior of chronic stoners and chronic cokeheads do NOT look the same. The ad was deceptive, unclear, and only served to widen the breach between confused kids and obtuse parents.

All of it ... 62 years of lies ... "Reefer Madness", "The Devil's Weed", Scott Baio in "Stoned" .... It's all based on lies .... In fact, given today's drug problem, I would ask if you agree with Pot Prohibitionist Extraordinaire, Harry Anslinger, who reminded Congress: "With opium we have a Jekyll and Hyde effect; marihuana is all the terror of Mr Hyde with none of the benevolence of the good Doctor." Or perhaps, "Marihuana, sir, is not dangerous in the same context as a cornered rattlesnake." Perhaps we should take a second look at the 1972 report .... Perhaps it was only coincidence that Nixon did not like that report, and thus scrap it, and would later, during his administration's troubles, declare a "War Against Drugs" as a rallying cry to the nation.

So I would propose, in like spirit, that you are certainly willing to do your good, and create more crime, and create more misery, and continue to contribute to a massive social tragedy. If you like, that is.

:D

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory

12-11-99, 12:00 AM

tiassa,

I refer to this excerpt from your post:

And you're right ... there are more important things ... but you did remind me that you founded an organizaiton helped keep kids away from drugs. That might be the most demonstrable example I've ever had handed to me. What was important about that was that most people in the 80's who fought youth drug use LIED to them. And that's what I was wondering about in your case, whether you employed the truth or the party line.

To be clear, the organization offered wholesome recreational activity for children who would otherwise be idle in the streets and exposed to street drugs, street violence and street crime. The organization's purpose was to organize, sponsor, support and supervise such activities and focused on the positive nature of its purpose... the discussion of drugs, violence and crime were not functions of this youth organization.

In reference to your passion for and knowledge of drug laws... As you know, generally speaking, I do not share your extreme concern in regards to these matters. Perhaps marihuana is not even as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco??? You know what, tiassa, I DON'T CARE because society doesn't need these substances to survive. Those such as yourself (if I am understanding your use of drugs correctly) who are so much in need that you choose to break the law on a regular basis to get and use your stuff, know the current consequences. If you think it's so important, that you'd rather fight that battle while watching people and families go homeless and hungry, then that's your choice. Sounds pretty selfish to me, though.

In reference to your final paragraph:

So I would propose, in like spirit, that you are certainly willing to do your good, and create more crime, and create more misery, and continue to contribute to a massive social tragedy. If you like, that is.

According to your logic, by my choosing to focus on helping to feed, clothe, provide shelter, jobs and medical treatment for the needy rather than on trying to change the laws so that drugs can be made more accessible and possibly less expensive for indulgers like yourself, I am creating more crime, more misery and I am contributing to massive social tragedy... Hah! Thanks for the laugh... What, tiassa, were you smokin' when you came up with that one?

JMitch

12-12-99, 07:49 AM

Truestory,
As a former and still occaisional drug user, this is where I have to speak up. Plain and simple, the drug laws in this country are unfair. There's nothing wrong with using drugs. legalization of pot would undoubtedly reduce the violence associated with drugs, and decriminalize a just action. You might not see it that way. But as far as civil liberties go, the government has no business in telling me what I can and can't smoke as long as I don't interfere with or endanger others. Certain people will always abuse substances, legal or not That's just human nature. That being said, the government should step in and regulate drugs to make them safe (ie. dosages and purity) and remove the covert and unpredictable context of them. It's only fair for the government to allow a non-dangerous alternative to alcohol. In large doses; alcohol kills, severly impairs judgment, and makes some people violent. Smoke too many bong hits, and you wake up several hours later with a headache. :) ( Of course though, this argument is for all illegal drugs but I wanted to use this example)

I think it's great if you help the needy and the homeless, but drug laws ARE a social tragedy as well. How can the courts justify the paroling of violent offenders (such as rapists) to make room for a dude whole sold a pound of weed? I honestly don't know.
And I'll just end this rant right here before I pass out on the keys. zzzzz zzzzzzzz....zzzzzz.

truestory

12-12-99, 08:11 AM

JMitch,

Wow! I'm sure I'll never cease to be amazed by the things that motivate some people.

I have decided not to waste any more time with the wasted on the subject of drugs. I'll leave you and tiassa to commiserate with each other.

Bye!

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 12, 1999).]

JMitch

12-12-99, 06:44 PM

Tiassa-- Sorry I drove truestory away. That's my inadvertent specialty.

Tiassa

12-13-99, 11:05 PM

Truestory--

Sorry the kitchen was too hot. If you do come back to read a few, though ... there's a few things I'd like to respond to.

In other words, you said nothing to the kids about drug use? And that's helping, by your context? Not once did that organization EVER mention drugs? Only diversion therapy and so forth? I'll draw no conclusions on those statements of yours, because regardless of how often you complain that I'm misinterpreting you, there is no interpretation of your summary of that organization's purpose that makes sense. Unless it can be said that, at no time, did the subject of drugs come up, which leads to several arguments even I don't want to waste my time on.

* "You know what, tiassa, I DON'T CARE because society doesn't need these substances to survive."

You know what, Truestory? You're right. And we DON'T need God, either. Not in the territorial, domineering, propagandous form that modern, mainstream, American Christianity has wrought on the civilization. By the way, tell the tribal nations whose economies and subsistence linked integrally to hemp that the UN's plan to extinct the entire genus "Cannabis" from the earth that society doesn't need it. Carl Sagan once pointed out that Cannabis might have been among the first intentional, domesticated crops. Rope, cloth, salve, food, oil. Tell me a plant that does it all ... In "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", Jack Herer included a 1930's pre-prohibition advertisement that demonstrated the components of a car, made entirely from hemp ... tires, panels, frame, upholstery, fuel, and engine block. Gee, I would love to know for sure that this is possible ... but I can't because the people who have, in the past, told me the same things about the Drug War that you are fond of reminding me, have done everything in their power to make such research illegal. In 1992 we had a pot initiative in Oregon. The winning prohibitionist logic centered around the idea that there was no credible evidence to support the libertarian stance. Well and fine, except the prohibitionist tradition has been to keep that research illegal. It seems to me the world would be better off if humans were deeply associated with hemp. It has plenty of uses besides the fun ones. But that's not important, is it?

And yes, Truestory ... you are creating more crime and misery. As long as three hundred-million Americans are still fighting about who's screwing who, and who's smoking what ... as long as one limited, interpretive standard is proper for everyone, yes, those who advocate such a hideously paradoxical standard are doing nothing except lending to the evil they seek to destroy. (Oh, and the dealer said the stuff was called "White Lightning", perhaps a holdover affectation from his cocaine-snorting days ... it was nice and crystalline and soft and sticky and smelled more wonderful than a rose garden. Otherwise, it smoked okay ... I've had better.)

So go forth and teach your children with lies ... just do me a favor: when the faithful are all at odds over what's proper and right for everyone else, leave the smart ones out of it. In other words, don't start taking things away from everyone else just because of greed, ignorance, apathy, or arrogance. Just because one segment of the society doesn't get it, they do not automatically earn the right to interfere in everyone else's lives.

And remember that creed: "I'm telling a lie, I'm telling a lie, I'm telling a lie ... guess what, I think I'm helping!"

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)