Rally to restore sanity and/or fear

[Guest Raidne]

It was a (apparently lame) joke about ancient and shamanistic medical practices.

In all honesty, I have to say that while I took an entire 3 credit course on shamanism in college, the movie Pi is the only time I've seen someone take to drilling a hole in the head in order to resolve some mental problem.

Which is not to say that I want someone to treat my ear infection with some kind of chanting intended to ward off evil spirits, but when it comes to issues like addiction, there is, really, no such thing as a placebo effect. Especially if it's 75% effective.

At any rate, I wouldn't ask the government to pay for it, so I have no idea what it has to do with this thread. I thought you all already had out this entire argument in some other thread recently?

[Guest Raidne]

Then our disagreement is only semantic, because I meant "gone" left in the same way you meant that he is and always has been liberal. However, I don't think that he was necessarily perceived that way by those all those who voted for him in 2008. Like I said, I know a lot of folks who confused his moderate demeanor with him having moderate policies. Not everyone reads policy statements or speeches as careful as us political junkies. Shit, I remember discussing that with people in 2008, pointing out his liberal positions and senate voting record, and the response was "I think he'll govern from the center", apparently believing that those policy positions were just things he "had to say" to mollify his liberal base, but that he didn't really believe them.

Well, only the people who thought this can say for sure (I'll ask my father-in-law when I get a chance) but I think a lot of people would take a look at universal health care, or even single-payer mandatory health care, and the system we had, and then "Obamacare" and feel like he did govern from a position of compromise.

(Actually, I think a lot of people will do this in a couple of years, when anyone has any real idea of what this whole health care thing means.)

To put it another way, Obama is a liberal. This does not mean that there are not other candidates who are more liberal than Barack Obama, or even that most liberals are not more liberal than Barack Obama. I am, for one, more liberal than Barack Obama. He's not Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis.

I do, however, think that he's more liberal than Bill Clinton on economic policy, but not social issues. I think what a lot of people were telling you is that they were hoping they were voting for something with the policies of Bill Clinton, when they voted for him in 1996 (or George Sr., when they voted for him in 1988).

You know, wouldn't that be nice - if our next Presidential election was like 1992? Good candidates on both sides? Only the far right doesn't seem to tolerate center-right candidates. Not on both social and economic policies (you can seemingly get away with being to the center on one if you go hard right on the other). This is the big problem that everyone has with the far right.

We just have to contend with, like, Solo and Coco, who are probably only going to show up and vote Democratic once in a blue moon anyway.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, only the people who thought this can say for sure (I'll ask my father-in-law when I get a chance) but I think a lot of people would take a look at universal health care, or even single-payer mandatory health care, and the system we had, and then "Obamacare" and feel like he did govern from a position of compromise.

TrackerNeil and others have made this point, but Obama governed as far to the let as he was able to given the political reality of opposition within his own party from Blue Dogs and others. That's why they disagree with leftists who complain that Obama wasn't leftist enough. The only compromises he made on the big issues were within his own party to preserve majority votes, not with Republicans.

To put it another way, Obama is a liberal. This does not mean that there are not other candidates who are more liberal than Barack Obama, or even that most liberals are not more liberal than Barack Obama. I am, for one, more liberal than Barack Obama. He's not Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis.

I'm not so sure about that. You know how he rated as a Senator -- to the left of Bernie Sanders. I think the only reason he didn't enact more progressive legislation was because he knew he didn't have enough votes within his own party. I don't think Mondale or Dukakis would have been able to enact a more progessive agenda either. He pushed as far left as he could given political realities.

I do, however, think that he's more liberal than Bill Clinton on economic policy, but not social issues. I think what a lot of people were telling you is that they were hoping they were voting for something with the policies of Bill Clinton, when they voted for him in 1996 (or George Sr., when they voted for him in 1988).

Again, I'm not so sure about that. Obama surely believes personally in the repeal of DADT, and of DOMA, and (IMHO at least) much of the rest of the liberal social agenda. But he also knew that those were politically divisive issues on which he didn't want to waste the political capital of either himself or Democrats in Congress. I think he basically prioritized the stuff he really wanted to get passed -- the core of which was health care -- and avoided doing anything that would lessen the chance of it passing. And it's passage was a very narrow thing.

You know, wouldn't that be nice - if our next Presidential election was like 1992? Good candidates on both sides? Only the far right doesn't seem to tolerate center-right candidates. Not on both social and economic policies (you can seemingly get away with being to the center on one if you go hard right on the other). This is the big problem that everyone has with the far right.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "far right", but the conservative wing of the party will support more moderate candidates, like McCain, if they have no choice. They just (understandably) won't be very enthusiastic about it. I think that's true on the left as well. But I agree with you about candidates. I'm still hoping for the GOP to nominate a true spending and fiscal conservative who will take a pass on the social issues, because I think that's a position that actually would have majority support among voters. Right now, the current crop of Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Romney makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. The social conservatives essentially killed Giuliani's candidacy in 2008, but then Giuliani held basically the "wrong" position on all those issues. Perhaps the economic landscape has shifted enough that a candidate who has the "right" position on those issues, but isn't a zealot about it, can get through.

Yes, I'm still hoping for Daniels....

[Guest Raidne]

Bloomberg!

As for the rest, neither of us are centrists, so we can't really say how Obama is viewed by centrists based on our own perceptions. We'll have to wait and see in the next election, or get some poll data. And Obama has never said he was in favor gay marriage, hence he is to the right of me and many others on that issue.

As for Bernie Sanders, come on. That would be like if we took the voting of, say Solo, who would vote no on every single Democapitalist-sponsored bill and then say Obama was to the left of him for voting for them.

Bernie Sanders is for single-payer health care, an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, applying anti-trust legislation to the media, and a supporter of gay marriage. He said, verbatim, to Alan Greenspan: "you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations."

Put your money where your mouth is, then: would you prefer that we put Bernie Sanders in the White House instead of Obama, since he is more moderate?

We might do better...he's anti-free trade and 100% supported by labor.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Put your money where your mouth is, then: would you prefer that we put Bernie Sanders in the White House instead of Obama, since he is more moderate?

We might do better...he's anti-free trade and 100% supported by labor.

Yes, because I think Sanders' lacks the political skills of Obama, and his "socialist" label would make it unlikely he could get much done. :)

To me, the difference between Sanders and Obama politically is that Sanders accepts the role of the outcast/maverick, and doesn't have higher political ambitions. So, he can afford to speak his mind and take public positions that would disqualify him from national office. Obama always had higher ambitions, and so has deliberately avoided saying things he knew could disqualify him from higher office. But the objective truth is that he cast the votes he cast as a Senator. I've read his first book, and my subjective impression from that book, based on his life influences, etc., is that the guy is at least as far left as Sanders. He's just much, much more savvy about it.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, I hope so, because with the one exception of the free trade thing, I agree with Bernie Sanders. :)

[fitheach]

By the past I was talking before the industrial revolution, that shit got really bad during the industrial revolution is actually helpful to my point.

Well no numbers on pre-industrial revolution drug addiction, since there is no known census or study on it before the industrial revolution- doesn't mean it wasn't there. OTOH, don't know if the Romans (who loved taking census) bothered with this particular issue. There are writings mentioning recreational drug use in ancient Rome (Caligula comes to mind) and I remember reading about Beserkers going into battle high... As for alcoholism, it's been an issue since man figured out how to brew hooch (Ancient Egyptians looooved their beer)... But no, no facts to back it up either way.

But one thing we may want to take into account- there are quite a few more people in the world today, and we're more aware of drug addiction due to research as well as the media, government, and societal censure. So it would seem that we have more drug use these days, but we don't really know for a fact if this is true or not.

[Brayden Lacroix]

I took a 50 hour bus ride to stay in DC for 50 hours, then took a 50 hour bus ride back to Winnipeg. I can't believe no one reported on the full on traditional Islamic garb dude with the sign that said "I am terror incarnate." Shit was hilarious. I then spent 12 hours in a bar taking on the role of the Canadian prophet and espousing the positives of Universal Healthcare to a ton of Reditors at the One Lounge by Dupont Circle. That was one of the best 12 hour periods of my life.

To those claiming a white sea of rally-goers, I have to ask: Were you looking only at sign backgrounds?

[Jaxtile]

Lol nub don't post from the Facebook login

[TrueMetis]

It's really hard to prove a lot of things from ancient times, you know, because the people aren't around anymore. One can only study any literature of the time (if available), human remains, and archaeological evidence. If you're looking for something definitive about ancient cultures, you're probably not going to get it without a time machine.

I would expect many description of addiction in the past if it was widespread. The asshole missionaries would love to use that, this will only work for the past 1000 years or so but many of these cultures have been the same way for tens of thousands of years.

The plants that the drugs are made of were available in antiquity, but they did not have labs where active ingredients were purified and concentrated so the drugs are not quite the same.

Not quite the same but you still get the same effect.

Is your Google-Fu that weak? Here:

Studies in the history of alcoholism. II. Acute alcoholism in ancient Greek and Roman medicine.

Drinkers and alcoholics in ancient Rome.

You do realize that you can't assume the contents of a paper based on the title right?

So unless you feel like paying for these articles and sending them to me there is nothing useful there.

ETA at this point it may be best to start another thread if you want to continue this.

[jurble]

Pretty sure priests of Dionysus were required to be permanently shitfaced.

Also, rofl, wtf?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2707876

Poor Marcus Aurelius

http://www.janushead.org/7-1/Roth.pdf pages 7 and 8 have some stuff on alcoholism in antiquity.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I would expect many description of addiction in the past if it was widespread. The asshole missionaries would love to use that, this will only work for the past 1000 years or so but many of these cultures have been the same way for tens of thousands of years.

I don't think people cared back then. There's plenty of stories of people doing stupid things while drunk in preindustrial times. They didn't call alcoholism, just being drunk all the time. There were also many people addicted to opium in China around the Opium Wars, technically after the Industrial Revolution, but before China Industrialized.

You're really putting too much thought into this. People do drugs because drugs are fun. People get addicted to drugs because sometimes drugs are too fun. Bit more complicated, but that's the gist of it.

Raidne, if you want to look at pseudo-shamanistic methods of dealing with mental illnesses, there's http://www.maps.org/home/ and in particular http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2010/07/mdma_for_ptsd_the_phase_i_tria.php

[jurble]

People definitely cared, Islam didn't outlaw alcohol arbitrarily in the 7th century.