What the heck is going on in the UK anyway? — jorndoe

The same thing that is going on everywhere...

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats

There's a void at the heart of things — mcdoodle

You think you have a void at the heart of things? Just wait! Once the Void Elect takes office you'll see a black hole enlarging from it's starting point at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

he was very smooth and believable — anonymous66

Snakes usually are.

The only good Orc is a dead Orc.

Sample scenario — jorndoe

I don't want to be guilt-tripped into doing "good" that I might greatly regret, or might be the last thing I ever do.

Am I capable of anything about the bad things I witness?
If I am capable, what are the actions that might take?
If there are options, how do I decide which action to take?]
Which actions will be effective, yet will not place me in the way of unmanageable harm?
Are there likely delayed consequences of taking effective action which does not cause immediate harm to me?

We can process these considerations pretty quickly.

Fist fight between two large men? Knife fight? Gun fight? = leave it alone. I'm not big enough, strong enough, don't know what the fight is about, don't know how drunk the two guys are, don't want to get punched out by interfering.

Neighbor's house being robbed. = call the police, observe, do not interfere.

Children being beaten. = call the police, verbally interfere, test the situation as to physical intervention (who's doing the beating? possibly armed? possibly crazy? likelihood of encountering adult or child later?)

Person injured in car accident, no one else around. Call the police and or ambulance, verbally inquire about condition, do not physically intervene (possibility of causing more injury); provide first aid if possible (if one has materials needed--at least apply tourniquet to bleeding limb); watch for fire potential, in which case, intervene if possible. (My understanding is that in some states there is a duty to respond and be free of liability).

Someone being robbed: call police, do not intervene unless one can deliver unquestionably superior force (in other words, don't start a defense one can't finish). Observe.

I don't know whether you would call these responses adequate, but like I said, I don't plan on rushing in and playing hero for a day and ending up getting beaten to a pulp or dead.

That's not how it really is. — Mongrel

But that IS how it really is in the reality check fictional work. Do you need a support group to process your feelings about this? Besides, what about all the fathers, sons, and brothers who were killed by the hell-spawn? No feelings about them? Not even a teensy bit of sympathy? Is there no end to the usual and customary PC nettles--even for the (marginalized/stigmatized) Orcs?

When do you want to schedule sensitivity training for hell-spawned diversity?

bring me a soda — Real Gone Cat

Your use of "soda" rather than "pop" or "coke" probably places you either in the northeast US, St. Louis area, or southwest US. You could be in eastern Wisconsin, which is also the western limit of Inland Northern pronunciation, which has it's roots in the northeast region.

http://www.popvssoda.com

Yikes, I must seem like the worst fan-boy. It probably sounds like I live in my parents basement surrounded by posters of dragons. "Mom, bring me a soda. I'm busy talking to my internet friends." — Real Gone Cat

So, how old are you now and how old were you when you first read the trilogy? I'm 70, and first read the Tolkien trilogy (and The Hobbit) (plus the Silmarillion, and some other bits and pieces).when I was around 30. Over the years I've re-read the trilogy...I don't know, 10 times, at least. I also read Lewis' 3 novels (and some of his non-fantasy books). Tolkien is clearly the better fantasist. As I recollect, (after 35 years) Lewis' stories didn't catch fire the way great books do. There are very good chapters in Lewis's works, but not great books. (I only read the Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe, but I didn't like it.)

Your case for Sam being the hero is very well supported. It gives me pause about putting Frodo forward as the hero.

As far as symbolism goes, Sam represents the working-class man who began to assert himself as WWI and WWII brought the old class system in England to an end. Suddenly merit and enterprise were more important than who your parents might be. (Remember, Frodo is upper class as far as the Shire is concerned. And Frodo's time is coming to an end.) — Real Gone Cat

Sam is, as you note, working class, Frodo upper class, and the industrialism and empire which had sustained the ruling class of Britain was reaching its end. Coal, for instance, had been a huge contributor to Britain's trade surplus, and the volume of exported coal was huge. The minors had been trying for years to alleviate their wretched lot, and gain sustained power. WWII left Britain pretty much spent. (Of course, the ruling classes didn't disappear, and neither did the working classes, on up to the present 15 minutes.)

I took sam to be a very loyal servant, really devoted to Frodo. Clearly, his affection and commitment went above and beyond. Frodo couldn't shake Sam, even when he tried to give him the slip.

So, I'll give way here, and change my runner up hero from Aragorn to Sam. You are right: Sam's role was critical from beginning to end, and particularly in the last hours of the tale, Sam saved the day. But still... Frodo put up an extraordinarily valiant effort to succeed in destroying the Ring, while carrying damnation around his neck and paying a steep price for his physical and psychy's wounds. The poisoned blade wound of a Nazgûl, Shelob's sting, and the baleful influence of the Ring. Sam, Hobbits, and Man inherited the world that Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, and the Elves had preserved and defended.

Where do you put the Dwarves in all of this? And Gollum?

Must be time to dump some irresponsibly absurd video clip on this enlightening discussion.

Every state of mind to way of thinking can be traced back to the unwillingness to accept the inevitable decay of ourselves. — eddiedean

I think it is a mistake to take one thing, death anxiety for instance, as the root of all our thoughts and behavior. Certainly, worrying about death is a factor in what we do, but it is just one of several.

Some people (atheist, christian, hindu, moslem, martyrs, saints, communist, nazi, etc.) value The Great Cause (whatever that is) over their own lives. They locate all that is good in the cause, and all that is good is clearly more important than everything else, including their own lives. (I don't believe that, myself, but some people do.)

It takes a group to make a "fanatic hero". Everyone in the group is jumping up and down with excitement about the great cause, the great jihad, the great war, the maximum leader, the great prophet, the great god, "the great this, that, and the other". We get carried away with the enthusiasm of the crowd, the mob.

Fanatics of all kinds are at least somewhat crazy, a little insane.

The Zombies (1965) are a bit more convincing. Their picked their name prior to the zombie apocalypse obsession.

Oh mother tell your children
Not to do what I have done
Spend your lives in sin and misery
In the House of the Rising Sun

These children in 1960s jackets and ties singing about their life of sin and misery in the house of the rising sun...

Likely story. Love the song. Love the Animals.

I'm all for gaining some more objectivity to negate moral relativism. — Gooseone

I find myself sounding like I support moral relativism, which I don't like, and can't seem to avoid. "Respect for individuality" or "individuals have a right to free expression of their personality", "Individuals have a right to reach their own conclusions about..." and so on. Western democracies pay more than lip service to these positions on the proper respect due individuals, (but sometimes they are not at all enthusiastic about some individuals who are just plain annoying). There are a number of regimes around the world who do not give a rat's ass about respecting individuals, and there are some regimes (really big ones) that not very long ago shot people for being too individualistic.

Were I a loyal member of the repressive regimes, I would probably think it quite proper to suppress individuality. I recognize that, it is a relativistic POV, and I don't like that. I recognize that many people find homosexuality wrong, perverse, intrinsically disordered, and so on, and in a pluralistic society, we are expected to grant respect to the individuals holding these views. I think they are dead wrong, however.

We seem to be fine with objective values as long as our moral objectivities are consistent with western democratic values (which I vastly prefer to repressive, oppressive regimes). But other people's moral objectivities are often considered immoral by us, and visa versa.

In other words, we all tend to be relativists. Maybe we should just admit we are relativists, like our own values better than theirs, we're right, they're wrong, fuck them, and be done with it.

I must be terrible at recognizing symbolism - I have never seen Catholicism in Tolkien's work — Real Gone Cat

I can't think of anything peculiarly "Catholic" in Lord of the Rings, but I'm not Catholic, so maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Tolkien drew upon a lot of resources with which he would have been familiar to give his plot texture, interest, color, profundity, the tragic and the comic, and so on, many of which were pagan.

Who is the Hero of LOTR?

Just as a fun side-bar, who do you think is the "true" hero of LotR? — Real Gone Cat

I haven't read Tolkien's letters, so I have only the text to go on. I would choose Frodo as the hero, for the reasons that Frodo:

Was an ordinary person--very strong, good, honest, etc. but was no super-hobbit.
Did not seek out the ring.
Did not perform selfish, evil acts with the ring while he possessed it
Found the ring very burdensome
Did not have any supernatural powers (such as simultaneously existing in Middle Earth and the Undying Lands at the same time, or lived an extremely long time, if not forever, or had magical powers like the wizards.
Suffered grievously for the role he fulfilled

Sam was cut from the same extra fine cloth as Frodo, and while he bore the ring briefly, he didn't sacrifice as much.

Aragorn, Tom Bombadil, Elrond, Galadriel, various of the Elves, Ents, hobbits and Rohirrim, various Men of the West associated with Minas Tirith, dwarves, etc. -- all had their significant virtues. But some couldn't be heroes because they had supernatural powers: Tom, Elrond, Galadriel, or elves.

I would rate Aragorn (Strider) as the first runner-up hero. Arwen merits a special mention, since she gave up immortality to stay in Middle Earth with Aragorn, whom she married.

But it is Frodo who bore the wounds inflicted by, or on behalf of the Ring. Bilbo also suffered, but more with advanced Ring-associated befuddlement, rather than agony.

Frodo is the Christ figure, willing to sacrifice himself to take away the undying threat to Middle Earth. Even if he stumbled at the last moment and claimed the ring, (shortly to lose it when Gollum bit off his ring-bearing finger and then fell into the Crack of Doom.

who decides if something is ethical or not — verbena

Hospitals and research universities employ ethicists and panels of experts to assess the ethics of various procedures. The various institutions of society (religious, secular, political, academic, etc.) also engage in ethic-definition.

We may not reach a society-wide consensus on what is or is not ethical. In which case, we have lots of disputes, laws, punishments, disobeying laws, and so on. Whether destroying embryos is ethical or not is not settled.

An embryo produced by stimulating an adult cell into becoming a pluripotent stem cell is too 'manmade' to be considered the same as an embryo produced by the usual sperm/egg method. So, I would consider it ethical to use or destroy the embryo, as needed. Should organ tissue be generated and grow into liver, that too could ethically be used or not, either way.

If an adult-cell-derived embryo is implanted in a womb, begins to develop into a normal fetus, (I don't think this has been done for humans yet, or yet reliably) then it, as a prospective person, could not be aborted, except under ethical rules (like, after 24 weeks of gestation). I also don't like the idea of aborting otherwise healthy fetuses for the purposes of obtaining tissue for whatever purpose.

The whole business of cloning and genetic engineering of humans is unsettled ethical territory, too.

Morality only has to do with intention, or desire. Desiring good makes us good. Desiring bad makes us bad. Outcomes can be preferable or not. — Maximus

Jesus said if you hated your brother, you were already a murderer. He placed quite a bit of stock in our intentions. Eventually I came to doubt intention-defined morality. What we do is more important than what we intend--and this is the basis of the final judgement described in Matthew: "I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me..."

I have no way of assessing your intentions, since I can rely only on your version of what you intended. What you did, however, is observable. So if you do good actions, (however we define good) you have done moral actions. If you do nothing in the face of need, or if you perform bad actions (however we define bad) then you have done done nothing or you have done immoral actions.

You and I can worry about our own intentions, but as a basis of morality, it doesn't work that well.

to say he's mentally ill seems very strange to me — Agustino

I don't think Donald Trump is mentally ill. The word "Unbalanced" had that connotation. One can have too much ambition without being mentally ill. Nobody has the 'perfect balance' of all traits. Slightly psychopathic administraitors can be very effective, thoroughly and widely hated, but still be "mentally healthy". Indeed, they function all too well.

Trump has a crude streak, he's narcissistic, he's extremely ambitious, he's a successful business operator, he's probably slightly psychopathic, he's no more of a liar, thief, knave, and scoundrel than most other politicians or corporate heads are at the start or become, and most likely would fit into the 'normal' range on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (a psychiatric diagnostic test). He's not mentally ill, as far as I can tell.

He's a loose cannon in a dangerous field of other loose cannons. His reach has exceeded his grasp of statesmanship. As pundits have said, he's restocking the swamp much more than draining it. He's nothing but trouble, and he can be all of these negative things without being mentally ill.

'I' would not, for instance, regard psychopathy as a mental strength yet seeing they appear to make great captains of industry, what do I know? — Gooseone

Just a cautionary note... Out and out psychopaths do not make great captains of industry. It's a suite of talents, one of which might be some psychopathic characteristics that makes them effective. A touch of megalomania helps some people too. More than a touch, and you have a an unbalanced personality (like some presidents-elect).

We can get away with saying "the world is meaningless" but not "human life is meaningless". Our celestial ball spins about its radiant star according to all sorts of physical and chemical rules, one of which is NOT "must have meaning". Our lives, on the other hand, are inherently meaningful. and must have meaning, because we are by nature "meaning makers".

We are meaning makers because we speak complex languages and wield complex culture, all of which is about meaning. Our lives can no more be "meaningless" than lifeless planets and stars can be "meaningful".

I hesitate to say that all life is meaningful because much of the glorious life which we inhabit follows physical and chemical rules, like the planet itself. We can make plastic pine trees meaningful to us, but we can't make plastic pine trees meaningful to each other.

The amazing thing about us meaning makers is that we are the long-evolving outcomes of species who were not meaning makers. Meaning makers are a very recent phenomena in the very long history of our world. How long we have been making meaning is how long we have had language and culture, and 'how long' is... 125,000 years? 250,000 years? 500,000 years? 1,000,000 years? Don't know, but at some point...

So, people who say that their lives are meaningless are wrong. They may loathe their lives and wish to put an end to them forthwith, but they can't escape meaning. Meaning just goes with the territory of being human.

I always had difficulty taking work seriously -- except for the first two or three years at three or four good professional jobs. So much of it either seemed from the start, or came to seem, like some sort of grand scam. I worked in non-profits; "the bottom line" is a bit different than the bottom line of for-profits. I was, I am, capable of industrious, high quality output, but I do need to feel highly motivated. Cash has never been a sufficient incentive. I have always needed a good reason to work hard.

The difference between non-profits and for profits is simple enough: In a capitalist society like much of the world, one does business to make money. Most of the money accrues to the owners, not the laborers of course. What do you think business is--some sort of welfare operation? All of the various non-profit operations -- everything from fundraisers for elite art museums to social work among bottom-of-the-barrel prostitutes is designed to aid in the functioning, maintenance, and reproduction of society as it exists, not as it might, should, or could exist.

We work because we have to, and people have to be paid to work -- no pay, no work. If you find a job about which you can say "that works for me!" good. If you don't have that kind of job, don't bother trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear you have. It's a pig's ear, it's not silk, it's not even polyester, and it's basically ugly.

Degreed, dressed in a suit (or not), we're still fucking peasants, pretty much, like John Lennon sang.

Worry about retirement as much as it makes sense to worry about it. Enjoy life while you are still young enough to do interesting things. You might not live long enough to retire; you may not be healthy when you retire; you might be dead before, or shortly after you retire; you probably won't be fit, handsome or beautiful, and in demand when you reach 65 or 70, so live now.

If you want to make a ruckus, make it now. If you want to be a prophet, a poet, or a painter, better do it now. Live cheaply, save your pennies.

John Lennon - Working Class Hero

As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

When they've tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

There's room at the top they're telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill

A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me

This 1969 song seems very apropos.

To be compassionate and caring towards them. That's difficult for the great men simply because of the hatred, fear and jealousy the average and normal exert towards the great. — Agustino

Alarm bells ring, but don't ask for whom the bell tolls; (it tolls for thee).

You are bleary-eyed but you are FORCED with a familiar decision- get out of bed or lay there... I supposed you COULD lay there until you get bed sores, shit your bed, and die of starvation, dehydration, and infection, but most likely you CHOOSE the decision to get up. — schopenhauer1

Fortunately, life goes on because you don't need to make choices at all these junctures of various bodily functions. You are a body, and your body won't put up with your decision to lay there in a pile of shit, wet cold mattress, while your are chilled, stinking, a-hungering, a-thirsting, and a-rotting from infection--unless you in your body is afflicted with terminal dementia.

Your body likes being warm, dry, fed, watered, and pain free. It will get you out of bed. Plus your mama deeply programmed you during potty training. Once successfully trained, we urinate and defecate in our beds and clothing only when something goes haywire, and we generally feel pretty bad about it.

It isn't your conscious mind that sustains your life: it is your body doing its thing as a body that keeps you alive. (conscious mind and somatic function are all part of the same body system--no dualism here.)

That said, there was a guy in my home town, Freddie Dewitt, who was quite smart, fairly well off, and and apparently not crazy. Freddie was middle aged when I saw him walking around town (back in the 50s). Freddie never washed, never changed clothes, never repaired his boots. His clothes were black and stiff with dirt and grease. His truck was a ramshackle contraption. He owned a number of buildings in the village's "downtown" and was a bad landlord. He never did anything to maintain, let alone improve, his buildings. He did eat and drink, though, and apparently used a toilet (outhouse, probably) of some sort. He looked and smelled repulsive.

Mr. DeWitt hadn't always been like this. As a young person he did well in the 1 room school he attended. An Aunt remembered his being very smart in school. He got married and starting farming. Things didn't work out maritally, I heard. When his wife told him she was divorcing him and expected a share of the farm, he threw a shovel full of manure in her face and said that was all the farm she was going to get.

So, did Freddie choose to become a repulsive pariah, the village idiot, in a small down, or did he fail at being a human being, ending up as a miserable wretch not by his own doing?

or always have more important things to do — Sir2u

Like crawl into caves and make paintings on the wall, or carve statuettes, or invent plaid textiles, or teach old dogs new tricks, sneak away to have sex with that cute girl (she's such a neanderthal), and other such damn wastes of time.

As Schopenhauer said, a man can do as he wills but he cannot will what he wills. — darthbarracuda

So, who wills what, then, if not the man? We will what we want, even when it is what we don't want. It just isn't a rational process. It's a paradox.

Willing desire one doesn't "want" (like, "I ferociously crave that man, and I know he is going to lead to nothing but trouble -- but I want him anyway, RIGHT NOW!" is only a problem for the model of man who is overly rational. For the normally rational, embodied man the experience of willing his wants even when he doesn't want what he currently craves is perfectly normal, if annoying.

The non-existent man who has an overly rational model doesn't have a robust body capable of generating desires one doesn't want. Jane is on a diet, she is having some success, and is proud of it. She's looking forward to a slimmer Jane. Suddenly she is struck by a ravenous longing for chocolate ice cream, cookies, and lavishly buttered popcorn--successively, all during the same evening. Jane desires to stay on her diet and become svelte, but she wills the journey of sin and debauchery to the store where she buys premium chocolate ice cream; big, thick chewy chocolate chip cookies; butter, and popcorn.

4,000 calories later, sated, she no longer craves these things and is beset by waves of remorse. So, who willed this act of gluttony if not Jane? No one else, of course. Her body (blood sugar levels, memories, limbic system, an ad she couldn't avoid for the new Hagen Daz deep dark chocolate ice cream with added lard) combined to overwhelm her rational mind. Jane is her body. Her body doesn't have an independent existence apart from Jane, or belong to somebody else. Jane, and everybody else, is capable of willing desires they do not want.

We will what we will, even if we don't consciously and rationally choose to do so--which is why Freud said "We are not masters of our own house".

A copper nugget (a natural lump of unalloyed metal) can be hammered into any number of shapes. Is the particular the nugget, the nail, or the knife that is the hammered out nugget?

Molten metal (man-made) can be cast then rolled, hammered, annealed, beaten, cut, etc. What is the essence of a railroad spike? It's spikiness, or it's iron bar form, or it's molten metal form, or maybe its un-smelted ore form? Is the essence of iron a generality that can be transformed into any particularity one wants? If you melt the spike and make a cup out of it, which essence does it have?

Doesn't transformation present a problem for determining 'essence' of some kinds of objects? What is the essence of a river (which we never step into the same one twice)?

This is what makes desires manipulative, then: they instill a sense of dissatisfaction that a person did not previously have, and force the person to extend effort to relieve this dissatisfaction. — darthbarracuda

Does a desire have some sort of independent existence in my brain in such a way that a desire can manipulate me? It seems like desires are the wishes of the individual. The individual motivates, drives, tortures, whips himself by devising desires whose satisfaction is not in easy reach, or in reach at all.

Why are we discontented? Why do we desire more than we have, or different than we have? We can learn to cool off our discontents, lessen our desires. We can learn to be content. I'm not suggesting that we should, just that we can.

That we know we can do these things (lessen desire) ought to take the sting out of our auto-manufactured desires. I don't know precisely what the beginning of desire is. Perhaps it is rooted in hunger (not literal hunger for food). Perhaps it is rooted in fear -- a fear of insufficiency. Perhaps it is rooted in the capacity to imagine -- whether the imagined thing is worth having or not. There are other possibilities.

At any rate, desires aren't manipulating us. It's the self working on itself. Maybe it all comes from not enough love. And by the time we grasp that, we've gone a long way chasing our tails down the highway.

I certainly agree that people who rely on social media's algorithm sifted "news" or "feeds" are trapped in an echo chamber. AT least if one reads newspapers (paper or on-line), one's eye might possibly stray across the page and stumble upon an article that presents unexpected information. My guess is that the majority of people (70-80%?) prefer the "push" approach to content, rather than having to "pull" content one's self. I prefer the pushed information of the NYT to reading wire service content, which requires all pull and no push. News, for me, should be "news". Surprise me!

There are, of course, other ways of filtering. Some people listen only to gospel radio, mostly read inspirational material, spend a lot of time in church, and socialize mostly with church people. They are in a pretty effective echo chamber of their own design.

I'm not quite clear about how social media algorithms function. Do they scan the output of thousands of content producers, and serve up only the material that fits either the completed checklist of preferences, or what matches the pattern of their searches and web travels: the amount of time they spend on various kinds of web sites, the kind of items selected for download, who their friends are, what their record of 'likes' is, and so on?

Personally, I would think that a record of actual internet use would be a better measure of their interests than a checklist, even if the checklist were detailed.

Of course, a lot of what is 'looked at' (porn, for instance) usually isn't news and won't guide content selection directly (it could, indirectly). Shopping online at Macy's or Bloomingdales doesn't tell an algorithm much about news, either, but if someone buys a $10.000 watch, that would indicate something to an alert algorithm, one would think. (Like this person might be interested in the falling prices of luxury watches -- a story I saw in the WSJ today. (Is $10,000 a reduced price in that market?) Maybe that person should be served stories about off-shore tax shelters.

We are embodied (born) with some essential features, which will unfold if we are lucky. If we are unlucky we'll die in the cradle and that will be that. If we grow up and mature, our existence becomes our essence. Existence precedes essence. No existence, no essence.

The details of our existence -- our bodies, our experiences, our nurture, our nature (genetic endowment), our parents, our peers, our teachers, our fortunes and misfortunes, become our essence. Nature and nurture combine to simultaneously make us so alike that we can perceive a "human essence", but at the same time so different that we can't miss our individuality.

Is 'essence' individual or group? Is essence a pool into which we all are submerged? Or is one person's essence unlike all others?

Well my point was this...
In theory traditional news media was not biased by design even if it becomes somewhat biased in practice. — m-theory

Are you sure about that?

I don't know a lot about the history of journalism, but it seems to me that "the news" started out as the editor's naturally biased thoughts on the events of the day (18th century). The very few "content producers" (as we call it) felt free to say whatever was on their mind, barring statements that might ignite a riot which could wreck their printing press.

In the 19th century "the news" and "content production" became industrialized, and a lot of people were out scouting up content to fill column inches. Competition between papers was vigorous, and the reading public was wooed with the kind of stories that would keep the coins klinking into the coffers and consequently, keep the owners happy. Again, anything short of a riot or a slander suit, or governmental wrath.

The 19th century segued into the 20th with journalism still being pretty raw. A much larger reading public, competition, and a certain mount of ruling class "taste making" reigned in the excesses, and journalism became a profession. By mid-20th century (and on to the present) we have had the slimy tabloid papers on the sleazy side, and the big daily publishers on the 'taste and dignity' side.

Taste and Dignity, unfortunately, do not rule out bias. It's just that the bias is more disguised, more camouflaged than in the past. The systematic way issues are framed, for instance, can disguise a large bias. For instance, in the 1980s the New York Times would not publish the obituaries of gay men that referenced bonded relationships -- words like 'spouse' or 'partner' were edited out. The bias of the Times was that gay men didn't have deep relationships. (They eventually did an about-face, but not without a minor riot on their doorstep.)

Take population movements: It's an unvarnished fact that people move from place to place, and sometimes a lot of people move at the same time. One newspaper will frame this as a humanitarian challenge; another paper will frame it as a cultural crisis; a third paper will frame it as economic opportunity; a fourth paper will frame it as an invasion. They are all talking about the same thing, and are likely to cite the same data.

They are all biased, and all conceal their bias in the way they frame the story. All of these frames are more and less valid.

The closest we can get to the facts is to recognize and accept another fact, and that is "news purveyors" can not be bias free. I can't, you can't, and neither can the New York Times be bias free.

I think it was in 2006 that I suggested making it possible to sue politicians and newspapers for stating incorrect facts. — Benkei

What you are proposing is a frontal attack on life as we know it! Why, if politicians and newspapers could be sued for stating merely incorrect facts (let alone more devious constructions) the courts would be backlogged into the next century.

The definitions allow the classification of all possible conditions of the mind as either being mental illness or being mental strength — Agustino

Relying on Facebook or some other company to serve up targeted news stories is ill-advised. Google or Facebook's intent may not be nefarious--I'm assuming their intent is merely mercenary--but the effect of getting only what you ask for, filtered by formula, is limiting more than the convenience is worth.

But then, Newspapers (thinking of the New York Times) don't really print all the news, all the news that's fit to print, or all the news that everyone collectively might like. They gather what they can afford to gather, and publish what they think is relevant to a 'responsible paid-up readership'. I've been reading the New York Times every day for... I don't know, maybe a decade. Before I bought an on-line subscription I always bought and read at least the printed Tuesday Times--that's when the weekly Science Times section appeared.

I am frankly getting tired of the NYT editors' ideas of what's relevant and important. I used to read the Washington Post. I stopped when they imposed a pay wall, and I didn't want to pay for two newspapers. I'm thinking of dropping the NYT and coughing up the much higher fee for the Wall Street Journal. (The NYT costs about $90 a year, at the low, low rate they gave me to keep me subscribed.) The WSJ charges more like $250 a year. I don't like their editorial positions, and a lot of their news is narrower than I would like, but their general interest articles are excellent.

Ideally, I would subscribe to the LA Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a Canadian paper. I would keep my sub to the London Guardian, and I'd like to read a French or German paper. I don't have time to read all that, don't know German at all and don't read French very well.

I have also subscribed to several magazines (Monthly Review, In These Times, Progressive, Dissent, and The Nation in the past, but have found these sources to be very predictable and limited. Like, these magazines cover labor and leftist events, but they are SO predictable in what they will cover and what they will say.

So, my news is narrowed to my preferences too, though not as much as it would be if I were depending on Facebook.

Interesting link, thanks, but... So? He was an academic theologian, not a candidate for sainthood. And as a non-candidate for sainthood, sexual adventurism (aka adultery) doesn't invalidate what he had to say about God being the ground of being. Maybe he had that useful insight during theological pillow talk with a paramour.

You, for instance, might end up committing adultery, and that won't invalidate what you have had to say about various topics (except your comments on your immunity to adultery. those might then go down the drain).

psychiatrists and psychologists — Agustino

A word on behalf of psychiatry...

Psychiatrists are, first of all, doctors who get paid through the bossy bureaucracies of insurance companies (at least in the US). How much they get paid per patient, and how much time they can reasonably spend on each patient visit is governed not by their employer, a clinic or a hospital, but by Amalgamated Medicine Corporation, or some such insurance company. The time per patient might be as short as 10 or 12 minutes.

Some psychiatrists see patients for longer periods of time, (30 minutes per visit), and they can do so because they are in private practice. They may not take Medicare or Medicaid patients though, because Medicare payments are a bit too low.

Visits to psychiatrists tend to be medication checks. How are you feeling? Do you need a new Rx? See you next month. They literally, and really, don't have time to discuss your life--as much as they might think it appropriate--thanks to Amalgamated Medical.

General family practices are caught in exactly the same squeeze. Patient time is metered by the minute, and doctors generally don't have a long time to discuss your vague medical problems. They want you to get to the point, show them your throbbing foot, quick diagnosis, Rx, and NEXT!

Good therapy takes time. An exceptional clinic I received therapy from did long-term counseling lasting for years, if need be, with 50 minute sessions. Patients who were unable to pay received the same treatment as paying customers. How did they pull that off? An endowment and enough paying customers to balance the books. Plus, they were a training program for PhD-level therapists who worked as interns. Were they any good? They were very good.

So, how do psychiatrists live with themselves? For one, they tend to have a lot of debt and it has to get paid off. They work according to the terms of the workplace. Two, some of them see patients on psychiatric wards, where they can treat first class insanity. Three, psychiatrists are as likely as the next guy to live a life of quiet desperation.

Major depression and schizophrenia, say, should be treated just as cancer and heart disease are - as destructive, physically formed blemishes on an already fallen and frail human body. — Heister Eggcart

Allow me to associate myself with your observations. Anyone who has lived with and loved someone who is manic depressive with deep depression and mania which immediately heads off into psychosis, knows, feels, and has suffered the inability to help the afflicted person. Even with heavy duty major tranquilizers (anti-psychotics), it can take days to suppress the screaming and thrashing of a bad mania attack. Thorazine and a padded cell is entirely appropriate for such situations, crude as they seem. Until something better comes along...

You know that, understand it, and haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water in a fit of total scorn. On the other hand, my depression went away when my life got better.

total distrust and scorn — Agustino

I agree with a theme in your OP. Mental illness is mostly not a physical disease (except that experience is mediated by the physical structure of the brain, and if the physical structure goes haywire...) Much of what is called "depression" for instance, is just a consequence of the ghastliness of many people's everyday life. They need a better life, not better anti-depressants.

For most people (let's say 90%) the terms of their life are reasonably compatible with their basic personality. Part of us is given before birth, part of us is shaped in childhood, and a part is shaped later in life. For some people (the remaining 10%) who they are is incompatible with the kind of person which society attempts to shape and which they are expected to be.

Back in the 60s and 70s the rate of mental illness was calculated at about 10%. Seems reasonable. At sometime in their life, 1 out of 10 will require medical assistance in coping with mental illness. That's a lot, 30 million people in the US, but 290 million won't require medical assistance for mental illness.

Sometime in the 1980s the estimates started rising and reached 2 in 10; 20% of the population would need medical assistance for mental illness. My guess is that the estimation rose because there was now an at least somewhat effective drug treatment that could be prescribed. The responsibility of people is to buy the products which will fix them. Besides, somebody had to take the place of all those crazy homosexuals who weren't defined as "sick" anymore.

The homo's replacements were ordinary, miserable heterosexuals who were unhappy enough that they were becoming significantly less productive (always a problem) or they were acting out at work (even more of a problem), or they tried to kill themselves in a way which went beyond a snivelish "cry for help". Some of them shot presidents (Ronald Reagan) in an effort to impress movie actresses. Was John Hinkley insane? Or had he simply happened upon an ill-advised plan to impress the woman he loved (Jodie Foster)? I sort of regretted that part of the plan didn't succeed - I'm sure he and Ms. Foster would have made a fine couple.

I'm not normal. — Agustino

I'm not normal either, and abnormal children are all weird in different ways.

My central problem as a homosexual child is that my sexual interest existed in a vacuum of information. In 1958, 7th grade, living in a very small town, when I began looking for information, there was nothing available. I didn't ask, and looking back, this was a prudent choice, given the time and place. I had nothing to go on but some childhood play experiences with the neighbor boys, and imagination. But I had almost no fodder for even a solid erotic daydream.

Plus, I was nearly blind. I could read, watch movies, etc., but my vision was very poor, and that ruled out a lot of activities that boys in rural midwest small town did--like work on farms in the summer, drive around in their parents car, play sports, do well in phy ed classes (which was whatever sport was in season), and the like.

There are biographies of gay men my age (70) who grew up in New York City, for instance, and could become worldly wise, even if they all didn't. There are also a lot of guys like me whose bios tell of growing up in rural North Dakota, Kentucky, Texas, California... If one lacked natural gregarious with which to overcome isolation, one stayed isolated, or one got the hell out of Podunk and hightailed it to the nearest more urban city.

Homosexuality used to be defined as a mental illness. In one way, that made sense: A lot of homosexual men who reached adulthood before gay liberation hit the fan in 1970 were, in fact, kind of crazy because of their not-surprising maladaptation to being the only gay fish they knew in the heterosexual pond.

The overwhelming conventionality of small town life was another crazy-making element for young guys who were going to build their adult sex lives in a deviant very urban sub-culture. Yes, the wicked, strange, big city was L-I-B-E-R-A-T-I-N-G, but it was also disconcerting.