On Culture & Social Decay

[H2O Man]

There have been a number of interesting threads in recent days that focus on the phenomenon of individuals in our society committing violent acts. Some use guns, while another relied upon arson and an airplane. There have been a surprising range of opinions put forward, ranging from some attempts to put the one fellow's manifesto into an understandable context, to beliefs that he must have been mentally ill, to utter contempt for such actions.

Many of the comments that I have read involve emotional responses, which is natural. These types of events, even if the take place in a distant city or state, tend to connect on an emotional level. There can be stumbling blocks to having dispassionate discussions about “violence,” for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most obvious is that our nation has a long history of violence. We are a violent culture. It is likely that a large number of us have had experiences with violence in our lives: some as children; others as adults; many in the context of relationships with a violent partner; others as the victim of a violent crime; and still others who have had a relative and/or friend assaulted, or even murdered. I doubt that I am unique in that I've experienced as much violence in my life as I have, and I recognize that there are times in discussions – here and in other contexts – that those experiences influence some of my opinions, on some emotional level.

In this essay, however, I will attempt to present a few points that I think are both interesting and important, in as unemotional and rational manner as I can. Best of luck!

Most people recognize that there a number of types of violence. In relationships, there can be physical, sexual, and/or emotional violence. For this discussion, I'll focus on physical violence. Also, rather than in interpersonal relationships per say, let's use the context of “society.” Of course, that can include personal relationships with co-workers, people in a class room, and similar public settings.

Next, there are two categories of violence we can identify: the first is aggressive violence; the second is violence in the context of self-defense, or the defense of those close to us. If a person attacks you in an attempt to rob you, and you defend yourself, there is an obvious distinction. The robber was aggressively violent, while you were justifiably exercising your right to self-defense.

Often, when we hear about a teacher who shots co-workers, people will think that she must have been mentally ill. Likewise, if a person flies his airplane into a building, people suspect that he was mentally ill. Hopefully, we can all agree that these individuals were not the picture of stability or mental health. Yet, it is frequently inaccurate to view their actions as representative of “mental illness.”

Under the law, attempts at “not guilty, due to mental illness” focus on the issue of if the individual recognized that their actions were illegal or not. It isn't an issue of if they felt their action was either justified or right. It is, rather, if they knew their actions violated the law. Hence, a person can be experiencing the symptoms of their mental illness, feel justified in taking an action, but still be guilty. Their illness could be considered as a potentially mitigating circumstance in the sentencing phase of a trial.

A very important fact to be aware of is that, despite the best-selling headlines of trashy newspapers such as the New York Post, people with most major mental illnesses are not prone to violence due to the illness. The single most important exception to that would be the disease of paranoid schizophrenia. However, as a rule, people suffering from major mental illnesses are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, than to commit one.

Equally important for this discussion is an understanding of what are known as “personality disorders.” Rather than attempt a long and detailed discussion of these, it might be better to explain these as the behaviors that people learn in their childhood and family life experiences, which they engage in as attempts to get their needs met. Certainly, in any discussion of families, there is a genetic component. Yet, much of these behaviors are also “environmental.”

We have probably all had the experience of meeting a person – in our homes, at school, or in the workplace – who believes they have the “right” to get their needs met by the use of some form of force. They might be verbally aggressive, they may attempt to intimidate, or they might be physically violent. A percentage of them may actually be true sociopaths/psychopaths. Others are a more generic form of bullying thug.

There are certain dynamics that we can recognize, in individual family households, communities, and the larger society. Certain types of social dysfunction greatly increase the level of stress within that system. Economic strains, as well as substance abuse, are examples. In our own culture, the role that violence plays can also be related to how those viewed as “powerful” tend to problem-solve. The example of Martin Luther King, Jr., encountering young men in poor urban neighborhoods, who questioned his advocacy of non-violence in the face of Uncle Sam's extremely violent approach to problem-solving comes to mind. In this era, we witness the anti-choice extremists advocating the cold-blooded murder of doctors, and tea-baggers attending public events while carrying weapons. I am also reminded of the hateful crowds that flocked to hear VP candidate Sarah Palin in 2008.

What we have today is a nation which not only is experiencing a very high degree of economic stress, that is putting serious strain on the social fabric of our communities, but also a large segment of the population that is invested in a delusional form of group-thought. This is not new: whenever a population is forced to live at a certain stressful conditions, tyrants attempt to get them to blame their low level of being on a common “enemy.” President Obama's birth certificate. Poor people. Ethnic minorities. Others.

In such times, two things often hold true: First, that the most incapable and unattractive politicians are able to rise to a relatively high level of power; and second, that those prone to the use of violence for “problem solving” and getting what they identify as their needs met, feel they have license to maim and kill. The first group tend to be amoral idiots such as George W. Bush. The second group are rarely “mentally ill” in an individual sense, but rather, are highly disturbed but sane individuals who are part of a larger, group delusional system. And both are extremely dangerous.

What we are seeing is part and parcel for a decaying society. We need to understand that. There is zero possibility of going back to the image of the 1950s, that the tea-baggers view as the American ideal. That's a delusion. There are, in fact, only two options. The first is complete collapse and decay. The second is the germination of a new society. A sane society. It remains an option, at this point. But, I suspect that option will not be available to us for much longer.

Thanks for reading this.

Peace,
H2O Man

[LatteLibertine]

1. Thoughtful post

IMO many sociopaths that are talented and functional rise to positions of great power in both government and large corporations. People shouldn't act out in violent ways and some certainly seem to feel the overwhelming majority of United States citizens no longer have real meaningful representation. They may feel as if the most wealthy have turned our representatives into sock puppets via offers of money, favors and power. This is compounded when the person being bribed is also basically a full blown sociopath who has no consideration for the far reaching consequences their greed and short sighted decisions cause. Anyone may objectively examine what occurred with the S&L crisis and later the 2008 financial market bailout. The folks I know are very tired of crony capitalism and corporatism. Currently, people are very frustrated with things like privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

Violence is not acceptable and history, and objective evidence suggest all these folks are not delusional.

[Me.]

3. The Thoughts Presented Are Both Interesting & Important

The decay of our society was apparent at CPAC where they amused themselves by mainstreaming the concept of violence. Nancy Pelosi pinatas. Harry Reid punching bags, jokes about the domestic terrorist. What is the dynamic that would compel a group to laugh about the hanging of a US senator? Can't they see or is it simply a matter of not caring, thinking it will only affect others?

[Emit]

4. Legitimizing acts of violence is seen in movements called Populist Conspiracism or producerism

I just read an interesting piece on this subject earlier this week:

Populist Conspiracism

When conspiracism is blended with populism, the result is frequently a worldview called "producerism." Producerist movements consider the "real" patriotic Americans to be hard-working people in the middle- and working-class who create goods and wealth while fighting against "parasites" at the top and bottom of society who pick their pockets.

... As right-wing populist movements grow, they can lure mainstream politicians to adopt scapegoating, in order to attract voters. Their theories can legitimize acts of discrimination, or even violence. And reformist populist movements can open the door for insurgent right-wing movements such as fascism to recruit from their own movements by arguing that more drastic action is needed....

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7737812&mesg_id=7737812

Also:

Producerism, sometimes referred to as "producer radicalism," is a syncretic ideology of populist economic nationalism that holds that the productive forces of society—the ordinary worker, the small businessman, and the entrepreneur—are being held back by parasitical elements at both the top and bottom of the social structure.

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

[Me.]

5. Now That Is A Fascinating Response

Interesting that it's attributed to right wing politics. Do they accept politicians on the right automatically or like the tea baggers do they demand an allegiance to their ideology. Which is what we've been seeing, Cons of all shapes and sizes bending over backwards to meet the purity test. Funny how that word purity is being applied again, just as the word homeland has become a familiar part of the vernacular. The question remains, do they not know better or just don't care as long as they can spit out the bile that's accumulated, for whatever reason, in their system? More to do with their own failures than that of government?

+1 on your post if I could.

[Emit]

6. Thought provoking questions, Me. "Do they not know better or just don't care...?"

These are similar to the questions I have been trying to find the answers to myself for some time. My curiosity has been piqued again recently with these 'Baggers. I do not know whether these groups all demand the allegiance to their ideology that tea baggers do ~ the 'purity test' that you refer to. I suspect they do, as right wingers, in general, tend to have an authoritarian world view.

They seem so convinced of their own moral purity and righteousness, yet, in reality, they fail miserably to reflect accurately or discern matters fairly.

These researchers define this as "losing accuracy motivation":

According to Hetherington and Weiler, authoritarians tend to rely more on emotion and instinct in decision-making, view politics in black and white, resent confusion or ambiguity in the social order, and are suspicious of specific groups who they believe could alter that order (typically gays and immigrants). The difference between authoritarians and nonauthoritarians, according to the authors, becomes far more pronounced during tumultuous economic or social periods when there are more perceived "threats." During such times, authoritarians in particular lose accuracy motivation and, "become much less interested than nonauthoritarians in seeking information that (is) balanced in its approach, and much more interested in pursuing one-sided information that reinforc(es) existing beliefs." Or in other words, they are highly susceptible to misinformation campaigns, the likes of which pervaded the health care reform debate last summer.

Most every characteristic of an authoritarian worldview lends itself well to the impassioned rhetoric of the Tea Party movement and the shrewd players operating behind the scenes and atop the soap box. The movement's overly simplified, often-confused solutions to complex problems align with authoritarians' Manichean worldview. That Tom Tancredo's anti-immigrant laced speech at last weekend's convention was well received comes as no surprise. And that this is the group who so often embraces proven falsehoods and spin-narratives to defend its anti-administration agenda should speak for itself with regards to accuracy motivation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-whatley/the-tea-party-movement-is_b_455883.html

Previously posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7702713

[Me.]

21. What's Also Interesting

In terms of the definition of producerism is that traditionally dems have been the ones with a greater leaning towards the middle class or working man and the Cons have been thought of as the country club set. Now that notion has been co-opted by the right, at least conceptually if not in reality. I find it interesting that liberals are now branded as elitists and can only think that the basis of this is a lack of education or applied intelligence. A factor which was fairly evident during the * presidency. A man who people would rather have a beer with rather than a glass of wine with Kerry, which was basically against their self interest as we progressives knew right from the start that * and the Dick weren't going to do anything for anyone but their own.

As for shrewd operators, I'd say Armey was poised and ready in the background, right place and right time.

It seems these people are undereducated and have low esteem and are therefore looking to vent their grievances in the form of scapegoating. It makes me think of the movie To Kill A Mockingbird and the scene where Mayella Ewell is on the stand and lies about Tom.

[H2O Man]

26. As the global community

becomes "smaller" per technology, there is a corresponding fracturing within the larger groups that once enjoyed a sense of cohesion. It's worth noting, for example, that back in the mid-1990s, ex-President Bush told then President Clinton that the republican elders were beginning to fear the increasingly hostile influence of the younger "leaders."

When people inject fear and hatred into politics, as so many republican elders have for decades, there is a tendancy to lose control of the forces unleashed. A more recent example is found when looking at the last three weeks of the 2008 presidential election. We remember a bitter Senator McCain asking a crowd, "Who is Barack Obama, really?" In the next few days, as a result of Palin and McCain's pandering to the potentially violent extreme right-wing, those crowds began their chants of hateful mantras. McCain himself, recognizing what door he had opened, attempted to close it. But that could not be accomplished, for as I noted on another thread this week, no dam ever built can hold back waters that have already passed by.

[Me.]

29. Wonder What Bush Thinks, Now, Of The Monster He Helped Create

Willie Horton

[H2O Man]

25. Very important.

Very, very important points. Absolutely. This is a significant factor in the dynamics at play today. Thank you for adding this information to this thread.

[PreacherCasey]

37. Parasites.

Just off the top of my head...

1. The private, run-for-profit Federal Reserve that put us, the US Taxpayers, on the hook for #2's crimes and that charges us INTEREST for each dollar they "create" (Just try to pay down a $12 Trillion debt with THAT arrangement)

2. Domestic and International "Too Big To Fail" Banks and Investment Houses who use peoples' homes as poker chips in their rigged casino games (read: derivatives)

3. Trans-National corporations that use cheap third world labor and materials to amass huge piles of profit, drive out local and then domestic competition and subsequently pay off politicians, merge into government regulatory positions, and buy up our "media".

4. Politicians (most of whom come from groups #1,#2,&#3 along with "defense" contractors of course)who use fear and war to LOOT our treasury and wreck havoc on the peoples of the world

Would you agree?

Was the Wall Street Banker Bailout not a conspiracy? How about the decision to invade Iraq?

[H2O Man]

17. Great points.

One of the largest groups of irrational citizens would be those who believe that our system, as it is, is generally okay, and that it is run by people who have the common good at the top of their value system. Their perceptions have been dulled by the social novocaine that is injected into them by the media, by lying politicians, and by corporate influence.

Western society has long graphed all things in the common form we learn in junior high school math. We even view "time" in a limited, single continuous line. Thus, the media etc presents the political/social left on one side of a graph, for example, to suggest that because people agree that the current system is unacceptable, that they have much in common with those who resort to aggressively violent methods.

Both Eastern and Native American thought takes a more 3-D view of life. That allows a circle, rather than a common graph, to illustrate the variety of differences .....including the understanding that aggressive violence cannot lead to long-term good. It also provides a model for understanding the cycles of time, and thus insight into the common fate of empires.

Those who understand these things do find the current state of affairs wrong, and unacceptable. And they are definitely not delusional.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

2. It's difficult to apply rational thought as you suggest

when we live in a militaristic, violent society. We go to war and murder and torture our enemies. we murder our criminals
in the most sadistic ways. Sometimes complete decay with the hope of something saner eventually emerging is preferable
than trying to rehabilitate the current system.

[Mari333]

9. good post

if the leaders continue torturing people, murdering civilians in other countries, are never held accountable.,that merely feeds into the citizenry and makes it justifiable to them.

[H2O Man]

15. Indeed, it is hard.

However, it is harder, in the long run, to not apply that rational thought.

Your last sentence puts my OP in a much shorter version, yet hits the nail on the head. Thank you for that. There are good reasons for small groups of people to focus on a withdrawal from the larger society, to become self-contained units, and to attempt to survive what is appearing on the horizon. Another option is for a number of those groups to create a confederation of sorts, to focus efforts on social reforms when possible, but to also recognize that those running Babylon are not interested in either reform or the common good.

Strange days have found us.

[mmonk]

28. Is there anyway to formalize such groups into a confederation

without various influences from the forces that ultimately brought us the problem? Is this especially problematic when these forces seem to manipulate dissatisfaction into influencing people to go back into their fold because of past allegiances?

[Raksha]

7. K&R

[H2O Man]

11. Thanks!

[mmonk]

8. One of the more disturbing aspects in my mind are acceptance

of things I could never agree to, not because of my ideology, but from what once was a common view of right v. wrong (such as the acceptance of torture for example) that in my mind marks an already dark decline and the other, the general lack of human empathy that makes positive social change possible. Add all this to an increasingly propagandized society where discourse is no longer possible, and things look pretty bad. Finally, acceptance of party leaders that could care less what our views are what our everyday living experiences are (due to the DLC calling the shots and the bubble of Washington), making positive changes in this country in a timely manner is made much more difficult. We have lost access to representation (though I know many here will disagree).

We must somehow organize into a movement. We must succeed even against those with the power to continue to buy our votes away from us. If we do not begin now, we will not make it. If we accept the broken promises and deaf ears of those we elect, we will not succeed. If we accept their excuses of why they can't listen to us, we will not succeed. If we accept the status quo, we will not succeed and worse, we cannot stop the decline.

[H2O Man]

10. I agree 100%.

Empathy and compassion are totally missing from all discussion on the national level. Indeed, both are viewed as quaint at best, and more commonly as weakness. Yet they are the two greatest agents of human evolution, in the psychological sense, making civilization possible. Without them, civilization is impossible.

Non-violence offers the only possible living alternative to us today.

[mmonk]

14. Thanks for your OP.

Another thing that bothers me is when I die, I might leave my sons, one who has a learning disability and the other one, who has a crippling form of anxiety, in a society such as ours with a disappearing safety net and the lack of enough human empathy a vibrant moral siciety has to have. It seems to have unravelled at a quick pace which makes proper reactions difficult.

[Me.]

22. Aside From The Obvious Reasons To Organize

Another is the tea party movement. It needs to have a counterpoint to stop it from gaining even more traction. History has shown how small virulent groups like this that are allowed to grow unfettered can become a terrible danger to all.

[mmonk]

24. Yes, when governments are weak and morally compromised,

that usually when extremists gain a foothold in a society. We must step up.

[rosesaylavee]

12. Sign me up for germinating that new society.

Other than remaining engaged in promoting good policies and the people who propose them... what else would you suggest?

[undeterred]

13. The lack of a mental health safety net

is what disturbs me. This man was suicidal, and he wasn't thinking straight. Talking to someone about his losses and despair to a therapist or other support person might have helped him deal with it and keep from acting out so violently. Maybe he wasn't the type to reach out for help. But there are a lot of people who would accept help, and for someone without insurance, there isn't much there.

[H2O Man]

16. The lack of affordable services

is a crime. Or, in my opinion, a sin. And I'm not speaking in the common, religious sense of that word.

There used to be a commercial on tv, about oil changes. The message was, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." And that holds true with human services, such as mental health providers. Our society can invest now, or pay a much higher price later, for the failure to do the right thing to begin with.

[undeterred]

18. +100

[timtom]

19. A tour-de-force, Waterman.

I believe that a new society will germinate. We cannot predict those twists and turns in the corridors of space/time, and we cannot see around those corners. In short, I am hopeful, though we will have to endure a most cataclysmic series of events.

[LWolf]

20. Good points.

Depressing, but accurate.

I'm willing to germinate a new, better society. While I've gardened all my life, concretely and metaphorically, I have no idea how to start the process in this case.

Other than to continue to "be" the change I want to see, and hope that someday I will be less of a "lone wolf."

[fascisthunter]

23. as always, I appreciate your posts, H2O

than you.

[lonestarnot]

27. My pleasure and thanks for writing it.

K & R

[upi402]

30. Ted Bundy: High functioning AND mentally ill

But the main point is, how much time do we have. I feel Obama will use up that time and then we're done. I'm making plans to leave this gun toting society soon. I've fought to prevent this for decades and see that it's really over, IMHO.

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. I think some pychiatrists have concluded that there really is such a thing as badness, evil,

and some individuals personify it very profoundly. There has long been this practice of ascribing a medical disorder of one kind or another to natural behaviour, both good and evil. A certain latinate term was coined to designate the 'sickness' of a slave who wanted to run away being an example of the former.

I don't know what they made of Bundy, but I suspect he was just very evil, a psychopath increasingly-inured to sin and consequently an easy tool for the forces of darkness.

[H2O Man]

49. Bundy was a psychopath.

While it's a mental health diagnosis, it is not an actual "illness." It is behavioral, and may be a result of the hardwiring of the brain. But, it is not an "illness" in the sense that it can ever be used as a defense in a legal context, or is a condition that can be treated.

In one edition, the DSM included Sadistic Personality Disorder. Unfortunately, it was removed as a result of political pressure. Still, a significant number of forensic mental health workers recognize its existence. Bundy was an example of a sadistic person.

[Joe Chi Minh]

53. Yes, he seemed a classic psychopath, didn't he. Not a shred of conscience.

Wouldn't have understood it at all. I expect you are familiar with the article on political ponerology, occasionally posted on here.
Some further fascinating information on their behavoural traits.

There was a documentary on our TV which seemed to me to grossly misrepresent the young schizophrenic who was the subject of the programme. He had apparently begged the mental health authorities to take him back into the secure psychiatric facility he'd been released from against his will, as he feared he'd kill someone. In the event, he used the back of the knife when he swiped it against the throat of a woman sales-assistant in a department store. I think there was a distinct possibility that it was not an accident that he failed to use the blade properly. It seemed clear that he indeed had a well-functioning conscience, yet throughout the programme he was depicted as a psychopath.

[scarletwoman]

31. We live in a society that normalizes sociopathy.

Not only normalizes it but holds it in esteem.

I don't expect to live long enough to "germinate" a sane society. My own view is that the best we can hope for is to protect the seed stock by carefully passing it on to our children, and instructing them to pass it to on to their children, until such time as the conditions may arise in which these seeds might germinate.

sw

[Hissyspit]

32. "There is zero possibility of going back to the image of the 1950s, that the tea-baggers view as"

"American ideal. That's a delusion."

It was also an illusion.

But at least they taxed the rich.

[The_Commonist]

33. Thank you for this.

Very well said.
That new society that needs germination, I like to call Commonizm.
It's the notion that we are all in this together.
If we start there, we might find a way out.
Otherwise...?

[DemReadingDU]

34. I worry about this 'me/mine' attitude

To so many people (governments, corporations too), it is all about me...I've got mine, go find yours. What does this say about decay in our society. What happened to looking out for others? Going forward, we are going to find that we need the help and skills of others and they need our skills and help, otherwise the future looks very bleak.

[blogslut]

35. When you say "decaying society"

To what are you referring? Human society or American society?

[H2O Man]

38. US society.

It also contaminates others.

[kgnu_fan]

36. Considering the size of nuclear arsenal we have now...

and proliferation of nuclear weapons all around the world --- that could kill the entire humanity thousands times over.... including US !!!! are we suicidal without knowing it?

Sometime whales beach themselves as if they are committing suicide. Aren't we like them?

[mgc1961]

39. It's Alright

Well done. I'm listening to this song as I browse the internet.

The Pet Shop Boys

It's Alright

Dictation being forced in Afghanistan
Revolution in South Africa taking a stand
People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression
I hope it's going to be alright
I hope the music plays forever

Forests falling at a desperate pace
The earth is dying, and desert taking its place
People under pressure on the brink of starvation

I hope it's gonna be alright
(Alright Alright Alright)
'Cause the music plays forever
('Cause it goes on and on and on and on and on)
I hope it's gonna be alright
(On and on and on and on, forever)
And the music plays forever
(Alright Alright)

Generations will come and go (will come and go)
But there's one thing for sure
Music is our life's foundation
And shall succeed all the nations to come

(Alright Alright Alright)
'Cause the music plays forever
('Cause it goes on and on and on and on and on)
I hope it's gonna be alright
(On and on and on and on and on)
(On and on and on and on)
And the music plays forever

The year three thousand may still come to pass
But the music shall last
I can hear it on a timeless wavelength
Never dissipating but giving us strength

(It's alright)
I think it's gonna be alright
(It's gonna be alright)
(Alright Alright Alright Alright)
'Cause the music plays forever
(Eeh-oh-oh-eeh)
(Gonna be alright)
If the music plays forever
(It will be alright)
If the music plays forever
(I think it's gonna be alright)
It's gonna be alright
(If the music plays)
It's all - alright
It's alright
(For it goes on and on and on and on)
(On and on and on and on)

[pitohui]

40. too many notes, too many words, what are you trying to say?

there is no evidence whatsoever that we live in a decaying society and much evidence that we live in a developing (technologically) and/or mature society (if you think we're near the end of improvements we can create, which seems a doubtful thesis to me)

true, in 1950 there wouldn't be many folk who could afford to buy, learn to fly, and then drive a private airplane into a gov't bldg, but that is not evidence that SOCIETY is decaying, it's evidence that a mentally ill spoiled brat didn't appreciate his rich opportunities in this life

truly...what society is not a violent society? who among us alive in the 50s and 60s DIDN'T experience violence then?

you're assuming facts not in evidence when you claim that we are, today, "decaying" -- we have far to go, but for cripe's sake, we have a black president, we have a female secretary of state, we have computers in our freaking telephones just like dick tracy...we are not "decaying" -- we are still growing and moving forward

in my lifetime, in living memory for not just old people but late middle aged people too, violence was for the most part accepted and every little act of violence didn't appear on the news, for instance, rapes and esp. incest would be almost always covered up, wife-beating and child-beating would be almost always repeat acts thru the wife's/child life that would be covered up

there is nothing special about 2010, we are not any more violent than any other time and probably less violent than many periods of time if you ask me -- as terrible as the wars in iraq and afghanistan may be, they are beggared in size and body count by world war 2 and many other previous wars

our society badly needs improvements, but to claim that it's decaying is just ridiculous on the face of it

the word "decay" has a meaning

we are not improving as fast as we could and we should, but that doesn't mean we're a rotting corpse breeding violent maggots

as for the rest of your post, everybody on this planet and probably for several solar systems around knows by now that the LEGAL definition of mentally ill is different from the MEDICAL definition of mentally ill, but if you don't think violent nutcases are mentally ill then bless your heart, you must be a lawyer...in a country w. 300 million people, some of them will be sick people, and some of them will get their hands on guns, planes, gasoline, what have you, it comes w. the size of the population, even if there is less percentage of the ill there are larger numbers because we've allowed our population to grow so large -- it's possible to recognize that most if not all violent people have something wrong with them without excusing their actions or setting them loose to run free, you know

[H2O Man]

41. Those Dick Tracy phones!

Dang!

[mmonk]

46. Right now we aren't improving at all. We are becoming more ignorant and barbaric.

It is because of our current political system which is regressing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

50. Re your first line, if there was ever any doubt, it's become clearer and clearer to most

that Einstein was 'spot on' when he said that technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal. Perhaps you're too young to remember. I like to think so.

America was a byword for violence in Victorian times, and surely long before. However, new types of violent crime, unimaginable in earlier times, are occurring. Rapes and murders by ten-year olds on even younger girls, one woman ripping a foetus she coveted, from another woman's womb; the double-dyed criminality of the deeply unjust immiseration and marginalisation of vast numbers of good people, for the enrichment of the ever-greedier few, and this, after the post-War Golden Age, making it much less tolerable to the victims. Drunkenness was always a problem, but drugs have aggravated the spread and the degree of criminal violence enormously. Where have you been?

[bulldogge]

54. Amazing!

Advancement in novelties and technology as well as the sexual organs and skin tone of our elected officials have little to do with producing a legitimate argument in response to this piece. Decay is the result of the grinding machine that pollutes the environment, the soul and the mind of the global community in the name of prosperity.....but you already knew that didn't you?

[KT2000]

42. Fomenting anger and hate

as a means to further a political objective and secure ratings and high advertising dollars is speeding the decay of our society. Some people enjoy the adrenalin of hate and make sure they get a daily dose - it makes them feel important and alive. My guess is that it becomes an addiction.

The person who consumes the anger and hate message daily, lives in a state of agitation that erupts at slight provocations. It is not unusual anymore for a person waiting in a long line to yell out their latest media fed gripe (talking point of the day), expecting agreement from fellow line waiters. That is ugly and rude behavior.

It is no longer odd for someone to turn a social gathering into their own opportunity to spout their latest political grievance. That is destructive to the social fabric and is ugly behavior.

I look around my community where there are many well-to-do retired people and I see many men who are angry and enraged. They have lots of time to listen to hate radio and hate tv. If you have to knock on their door, you will be greeted with someone who looks like he is ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

We have to acknowledge that there are very real efforts to make the populace angry, resentful and afraid so they will be malleable for political objectives. As a result, our social manners are breaking down and being replaced with rude, angry behavior. That is now somewhat normal. People with fragile minds then, do not have far to fall when they go over the edge and commit horrific acts. What they do with their guns is not so different than the daily dose of dehumanizing others that is now considered "news" and "entertainment."
I am not saying that the shooters and suicide pilots are acting out a political objective, rather they live amid an increasingly uncivil society where there crazy deeds look more reasonable than they should.

[EFerrari]

43. In a society that accepts government surveillance, kidnapping, torture

and extra judicial executions, not to mention, fake elections, fake news and fake Congressional oversight.

We're a mess.

[democrank]

44. Thank you once again, H20 Man.

If this isn`t societal decay, I don`t know what is.Perhaps olders DUers notice it more than others.

From our lack of empathy to our chronic self- indulgence to our rejection of timeless principles, we are without question, on a downward spiral."All for one and one for all" is no more.

I hope with all my heart that people who care win over those who don`t.

[Delphinus]

45. Thank you for your essay.

There is no going back; it would be nice if we could go forward with an understanding of our natures and bring peace to our lives and the lives of others.

Although I do not condone what the Austin pilot did, or the Columbine shooters, or Andrea Yates, etc., were there certain parts of their life story I could identify with - yes, there were. Not a one walks among us that has not been harmed in some form or fashion. Healing and learning and recognizing that we are all connected in the race of humanity is elemental.

[tango-tee]

47. Great post, H2O Man.

It appears that the decay we are witnessing today has been a slow erosion which has taken place over many years.

How do we treat each other on a daily basis? Especially, how do we treat those who are in need?

At times, listening to some of my colleagues, he who has the latest model car, the largest TV, the most expensive vacation is king for the day. He - or she - may be the one twisting the knife in your back, but possessions seem to matter so much. I got *mine*. And sadly, politicians are setting a lousy example. Bought and paid for, all too many of them.

[Octafish]

51. 'Americans love a winner.'

George C. Scott's "Patton" encapsulated the ethos -- "Real Americans love a fight. That's why they'll never tolerate a loser." Nixon said the film helped him make up his mind to illegally make war on Cambodia. The film must still be close to the hearts of those in power -- the War Party. From IMDB:

Patton: Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, and will never lose a war... because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

The idea of defending freedom and family extends to defending "my stuff." The more stuff one has, the more one focuses on protecting it. So we're engaged in a war without end on terror, which, coincidently happens to be taking place above many of the richest concentrations of black gold on the other side of the planet.

Today 1-percent own the lion's share of all the property -- money, real estate, stocks and bonds. Reports are that one in four jobs ties directly to the service and protection of that wealth. The American dream has become the formula for its own demise.

I've read several works by, and on, Patton and I believe he -- an ultraconservative Republican outta California would agree: Sociopathy and greed have today combined to concentrate power and wealth to the point where people are starved for clean spiritual air and intellectual water.

[Overseas]

52. I believe millions voted for President Obama longing for a return of some basic compassion.

The Republicans and their Bush Gang had pushed our country off some fundamental economic and moral cliffs. We had reached a plutocracy and an unbridled executive branch that felt confident about committing war crimes in our name again.

The Bush Crash and The Bush Bankers' Bailout created the perfect opportunity for Democrats to band together as a block and push through Medicare for All. The USA's healthcare for profit system stands out among other nations for its cruelty-- that citizens can go bankrupt due to medical emergencies is unthinkable in most other democracies.

Having their taxes support a stronger social safety net because it is basic human compassion gives citizens of other countries a deeper sense of security and community than we have.

Democrats should have planned the first months of the Obama Administration to include a very unified push for Medicare for All. They knew the right wing machine would continue manufacturing hatred for the new Democratic administration and would use every minute of discussion and delay to pump up the distracting slander. Democrats should have been lined up to give our new president this one item unequivocally. His team should have insisted on that.

Bush Crash + Bush Bankers' Bailout = desperate population being evicted from their homes. The people need a clear bailout and we Democrats were elected to provide that. It is time to strengthen our basic compassion as a nation by giving our people national health security.

Even the precious bipartisan dream would not need to have been set aside. It could have been employed as a major series of teaching moments for the country. The President could have given some speeches to remind the country that he did look forward to working with the Republican party in a bipartisan manner, once they had recovered their party's basic ideals.

He could have said-- I look forward to working with Republican leaders when your party has recovered its lost ideals.

The Republican party used to stand for fiscal restraint, but your last president ran up deficits in the trillions to finance a privatized war of choice. The Democratic President who preceded Bush turned over a surplus and Bush handed over a deficit of 1.3 trillion to me. Your party used to stand for fiscal responsibility but it cut taxes for our wealthiest citizens in a time of two wars. Your party called itself fiscally responsible but neglected our national infrastructure and left its successors billions of dollars of deferred maintenance to correct. Your party called itself fiscally responsible but promoted the deregulation of the financial sector which led to the marketing of deceptive mortgages and bundling and swapping them that was a big part of the Bush Crash.

The Republican party used to stand for a strong, effective national defense. But the Bush team pushed the military away from chasing down Osama Bin Laden to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses, which they themselves have admitted. They flagrantly violated ethical boundaries set in the Geneva Conventions which protect our own troops as much as they do other countries' enemy combatants. Their practices told the world that the country that spends more on its national defense than most other countries combined, could not do its job without brutal violation of moral boundaries for which violations we had executed others after WWII. Those actions made our country look desperate, rather than strong. Furthermore, even when the privatized military contractors couldn't provide enough armor for our troops, served moldy food, electrocuted our troops in their showers, or lost a few million dollars here and there, your party didn't demand their ouster. Privatization was blindly supported, regardless of its results and evident corruption.

Right now, the country voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic agenda-- they want some basic compassion and common sense returned to our government.

The Democratic party gave up its last push for national health insurance by going along with your party's insistence that the private sector could do better. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. The triggers of decency have been blown off their hinges and our people are now desperate for care. Insurance company premiums have soared, even while they have devised new methods to deny people the care they need. The private insurers have rewarded their executives with multi-million dollar pay packages for creating their soaring profits by devising means to cover less people and continue raising their rates. The results of our letting the private sector show us if it could do better are in-- 47 million people are uninsured, and millions are forced into bankruptcy to cover medical bills, even when they have paid for insurance coverage for their entire lives.

I am hoping you Republicans will join me in providing some basic compassion to our people after our economy has been devastated by the Bush Crash and Bush Bankers' Bailout. Surely you see the wisdom in providing national health security and compassion to our people when they are facing eviction from their homes and massive layoffs in this economic upheaval.

We need to help our people right away, so we will be calling for the expansion of two existing systems. The expansion of Medicare with a sliding-scale buy in for those who want the public option, and the expansion of the insurance exchange we public servants have been privileged to get for those who prefer the private sector.

Sigh... yet another iteration of how I'd hoped January 2009 would go. The desperate people voted for Democrats to help them out. They begged for basic compassion and we could have seized that time.

It could have been the one big thing our Democratic legislators banded together as a block to give our people-- basic compassion and freedom from privatized medical terror.

To pull it back to the theme of moral decay-- The GOP had driven our country off some big moral cliffs in a brazen manner. Their operatives had stirred up dangerous fear and hatred even at the campaign rallies for their ticket-- getting them to hiss terrorist socialist even way back then. The GOP moral decay was very evident. Millions crossed party lines to vote those guys out. To call a massive Time Out on GOP madness.

When that didn't happen, and we were treated to the pretense that their party had any rationality left, for months and months, I was left quite demoralized, feeling ever so naive for cherishing my Democratic dream of the return of basic compassion to our government.

[tcaudilllg]

55. Do the Insane have First Amendment protections? Should they?

First of all, let me respond to this:


The first group tend to be amoral idiots such as George W. Bush.


Uh oh, back up. This is a big mistake, and the fuel which drives well-meaning conservatives into the arms of extremists. We absolutely need more sympathy, but we need it for the right people. Bush redeemed himself when he acknowledged that the markets were not working as they should. That he was responsible for the recession is history, let's let it be.

The big problem was not Bush but who had his ear. The excesses of postmodernism have constellated an unholy alliance of people who believe they are right and good in all they do, whether they model their more sensible betters or not. The Right itself has become poisoned: the rise of colleges where creation science is treated as fact and antiquated models of reality are blindly accepted as all-encompassing truth have together disfigured the intelligence and self-critical ability of the modern Right. The few genuinely sensible people on the Right have been marginalized, ignored, and persuaded of their inability to get through to Right-wing politicians. The Right today is more concerned with caring for the poor and disadvantaged in other countries than they are for their own. All their attempts to give people in America a hand-up have been hampered by failure to account for even a majority of all the factors involved... the world is changing, and the Right has not kept up.

What we need to do is concentrate on educating today's younger conservatives in the new ways... we need to share with them what we know and demur from this hate and anger. That doesn't mean that we need not defend ourselves from Tea Partiers and conservative extremists, but we need to use the right tactics. They want to deny the spirit of American altruism? Let's call them out on it!

As for the people who go nuts over matters of group action, we have them on the Left, too: the people who insist, for example, that we should stop eating meat and go completely veg. The people who are against animal testing of any kind. The utterly-antiwar people, who lay down like lambs BEFORE the conservative extremists. These people are troubled by something deeper than their histories... they literally don't give proper weight to the available evidence that most of us use to make correct decisions. So the question comes up... are these people really the kinds of people you want actually exercising political power AT ALL? On either the Right OR the Left? Should these people of questionable capacity for mental acuity be allowed to bait our politicians away from the fringe with their primary votes? With their general election votes? Let's stop and ask ourselves who we want, as a nation, deciding our future.