• Welcome to The Fedora Lounge!

A generation with its hand out...

Discussion in 'The Observation Bar' started by p51, Nov 29, 2017.

  1. The iPhone is a perfect example of my point in that first you create a demand, then you deal with the supply. No one wants or needs the iPhone X for example , yet millions of people around the world have been persuaded that they do. The talent doesn't lay with the actual manufacture of said phones, nor their distribution but in persuading the potential purchasers that they must absolutely have your phone.
    Of course the supply chain involves logistics but it doesn't require talent or geniuses as you suggested.
     
  2. I live in the least "churched" state in the Union, so the idea of being asked "And what church do you go to?" is as alien to me as "What part of Mars are your people from?"

    But the fact that we aren't "churched" here doesn't mean we don't have spiritual beliefs -- if anything I think there's a greater variety of such beliefs here than I encountered during my sojourn in California in the hippy-dippy eighties. We'll discuss them if the subject comes up, and from doing so I think it's safe to day that most people here don't reject belief in a deity as much as we reject "religion," meaning the institutionalized practice of worship according to a prescribed ritual. Proseltyzation isn't considered offensive as much as it's considered bad taste.

    From my own experience, the kindest, most spiritual people I know in our own community are those from our local synagogue. Whenever there's a charity drive going on, they're in the forefront of it. And they also make a point of paying the city the amount of property tax they'd have to pay if they weren't exempt as a donation to the costs of city services, and I respect and admire that very much.
     
    Edward and vitanola like this.
  3. While I would personally steer clear of any addiction treatment program with a religious bent, the more secular ones of my acquaintance are also to a large degree "faith based" -- not overtly religious, perhaps, but grounded in what is more an article of faith than anything truly scientific.

    Disease models pose more questions than they answer. it appears that such thinking is falling out of fashion in the field. That's all to the better.

    Substance abuse -- smoking and drinking, mostly -- was once so central to my life that I entertained no illusions that I would ever quit. It influenced (dictated, really) the jobs I took, the relationships I pursued, the places I resided.

    But then I just quit, a bit more than 11 years ago, when it became apparent that it was killing me. No "treatment program," no medications. No meetings.

    Since then, I've angered several people who say they are "trying to quit" smoking or drinking or whatever drug(s) they habitually use. Ain't no "trying" about it, I say. You either quit or you don't. A person who professes she is "trying to quit" smoking while lighting a cigarette might be fooling herself, but she isn't fooling me.
     
  4. You should be more concerned with the fact modern society actually requires a concept such as "Giving Tuesday" to make people aware of the fact that others may not have what they do--that the average American has to be jarred out of their selfish mentality to actually stop and consider others for five seconds. Also, I suggest you learn about the concept of tzedakah. We Jews take it so seriously that we have a traditional box for the funds in our houses. It's also common for us to donate funds to a charitable organisation when there's a big life event, holidays, etc.
     
  5. I'm much the same way, but being on the autism spectrum, it's hard for me to understand addiction. I get it from a neurological perspective, but I just can't comprehend a substance ruling my life because for me, it's not possible. It angers people when I ask how they can allow that to happen, but I truly want to know--it's not a judgement on my part, just that I can't picture myself in their shoes, so to speak. I hope this makes sense.
     
  6. Addiction is similar to (but not exactly the same as) a biological necessity, such as hydration and nutrition. The addict senses the "need" for his or her poison of choice. Just gotta have it. Or so he thinks.

    Where I part company with some people is that while I recognize the similarity, I certainly don't conflate the two. And neither would they, if they gave it a bit more thought. But they don't. It's like a religion to them, taken entirely on faith.

    It was more true a couple of decades ago that some (subscribers to the disease model of addiction, mostly) were making "diseases" of "addictions" to sex or food or even love. Sure, there are similarities in the behavior of those addicted to certain substances and chronic overeaters and compulsive horndogs and that person who meets the true love of her life every couple-three months. But it isn't the same thing at all, and treating it as such creates more problems than it solves.
     
    vallettavalentine likes this.
  7. That makes sense. It's more of "When Necessity Goes Wrong," I guess. Thanks for the feedback!
     
  8. Yes, that makes sense. People don't 'allow' themselves to become addicted though, they simply start out believing they are in control & then the ever increasing need starts to control them.
     
    vallettavalentine likes this.
  9. Yes, indeed. Although I couldn't appreciate it at the time, in hindsight, being able to hear hosts William B. Williams, Julius LaRosa, etc, spinning records covering the likes of FSinatra, JMathis, TBennett, DMartin, PLee, etc, would be all I would be tuned in to these days.
     
  10. Also, there's a growing body of research proving that some of us are more prone to addiction than others. Some of these influences on our likelihood to become addicted start when we are in the womb (not to mention genetics).

    For instance, a child born to a woman under severe stress during her pregnancy is more likely to become an addict than a child born to a mother without a severe stress load.
     
    vallettavalentine likes this.
  11. How are the effects of that maternal stress isolated from the other factors potentially resulting in a higher likelihood of addiction in offspring, of which that stress may be but a piece?

    I'm not disputing it, as I have no familiarity at all with the research. Still, I wonder if we might be looking at something akin to "the families having dinner together" advocates who focus on the act of dining together as though that were the primary factor in certain favorable outcomes.

    I'm curious about this research, as my mother must have had a terribly stressful time of it while she was pregnant with me. She had been 22 for a month and a half when I, her third child, was born. Her husband was dying of colon cancer. He'd be dead when I was four months old. And of my siblings I adopted the most addictive ways. But you gotta wonder about the effects of birth order and early childhood experiences and role models and, and, and ...
     
  12. Well, it's impossible to tangle all that out and I am not an addiction researcher. However, what I have seen are retrospective studies that look at a number of factors and this runs more significant than other factors. In other words, looking across siblings and upbringing and resources and... etc. this still runs as a significant factor.

    It's really difficult to do a prospective experimental study of this stuff (and unethical). You can't assign women to highly stressful situations then track their children for 40 years.
     
  13. Which is my point. Like much in the addiction research field, it comes (or ought to) with many a caveat.
     

  14. I heard that one from members of the Greatest Generation (including my Dad) as well. By way of caveat, I was also told that the British Red Cross had to do so as a means of recouping costs, and that the American National Red Cross followed suit in order not to cause friction between the two organizations. My Nam vet friends informed me that the Red Cross never charged for such things, so it's just one of those things, I guess.


    The whole situation with the British Red Cross really enhances my empathy- and admiration- for Mr. Tommy Atkins of the UK. The Brits were paid about a fifth of what like ranked US soldiers were paid, and that surcharge for a cuppa joe (or tea?) must have hit them pretty hard. They also were "in it" from September 1, 1939 until the end: we in the US didn't join the fight until December of '41. Dad had a lot of respect for our British Allies: I share that.
     
    vitanola and sheeplady like this.
  15. sheeplady likes this.
  16. It's a good idea. Here in the UK, the idea of monthy direct dbit giving has been around a long time; theminimum is two or three pounds which you don't notice, but over the courseo f the year adds up to more than many people might think to give to a particular charity. The controversal bit here is that the people who sign folks up to it on the street are employed on a commission basis to do so, and it often takes a year before (at minimum rate) what the charities gain makes back what the agencies who employ the Chuggers ("Charity Muggers") cost. Still, the charities keep employing this route, so they must find it worth it....

    The more dangerous effect of the web for charities is how social media warps people's conception of 'helping' charity. An awful lot of people these days will be happy to change their facebook avatar or pour water over themselves and post a video online or somesuch, and thnk somewhow they're helping Raise Awareness, but it's of little practical help for the charity in ral terms in most cases....



    Reports on especially this issue and how it has been dealt with by the American Sally Army have very much hurt the British organisation (which by and large s a different beast on the ground). Certainly true that the Brit Sally As will not accept a gay person for membership (in the same way as they will not accept a smoker, a drinker, someone who cohabits unmarried....), BUT what all those who crow about this either forget or don't know is that when the AIDS crisis first hit in the Eighties, when the mainstream press were openly calling it "the gay plauge" and far worse, the Sally Army were there. When professional nurses were refusing to enter AIDS wardsor deal with those patients, and those who did wore HASMAT suits, it was the Sally Army who quietly went in there as themselves and held those people's hands as they died, showed them some human compassion. Folks can say a lot about the Sally Army, some of it fair, but much of the time they're out there doing work somebody needs to, and nobody else will - least of all, oftentimes, their critics.
     
    sheeplady and LizzieMaine like this.
  17. Interesting. I'm glad that at least someone else had heard of the story, and it's documented! This was my grandfather's most common war story... showing how angry he was about it 40-50 years later. Everytime a red cross ad came on television. Although I think my grandfather had the common belief everybody saw bad things, did bad things, etc. and you just didn't talk about said things, which Is why I never heard much else.

    But charging for coffee was acceptable to talk about. :)
     
    ChiTownScion likes this.

Share This Page