[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]I missed the debate.

Here’s the full video of the debate in case you missed it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/video-the-new-hampshire-2012-debate-in-full/%5B/quote%5D

I caught the Iowa debate, but missed this one. I was originally going to thank you for posting. But after I watched it for 30 mins or so, I found that I was yelling and throwing things at the screen.

So I have made up my mind (while I still have one) to refrain from watching or listening to any more Republican debates. If I want to expose myself to stock phrases such as “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem” or “corporations are shipping jobs overseas because of the high corporate tax rates here”, I can hear them on the Daily Show…..right before Jon Stewart ‘s crew shoots them full of holes.

However, I have to comment on one sorta creepy aspect. The candidates were all given a chance to introduce themselves and say a little somethin’-somethin’. First up: Rick Santorum.

“I’m Rick Santorum. I served 12 years representing Pennsylvania in the United States Senate, but I also have substantial executive experience making the tough decisions and balancing budgets and cutting spending. Karen and I are the parents of seven children.”

At that, he stopped, and got this big, smarmy, expectant smile on his face, like awaiting acknowledgement of this incredible accomplishment/ biological function. And so it went, down the line: one after the other had to engage in reproductive one-upmanship. “I’ve been married for 24 years and have 9 children”, “I’ve got 5 children AND 3 grandchildren”, “I’ve got a husband (who is also my stylist), 6 children, and 47 foster children, and am planning an even 100 grandchildren, hoping for at least one token biracial”. Okay, Michelle Bachmann didn’t really say that, but would anyone really be paying enough attention to know if she did?

What is with this pride in child production? I’m sorry to say that the crowd gave the applause and acknowledgement for which they appeared to be waiting. But maybe it was because they honestly knew that this was going to be the high point of the debate for most of them. Sorry, but it just really creeped me out.

Except for when they got to Newt Gingrich, who obviously believed that it was best to leave out mention of anything having to do with marriage or children, and just looked uncomfortable. That was funny.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]I missed the debate.

Here’s the full video of the debate in case you missed it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/video-the-new-hampshire-2012-debate-in-full/%5B/quote%5D

I caught the Iowa debate, but missed this one. I was originally going to thank you for posting. But after I watched it for 30 mins or so, I found that I was yelling and throwing things at the screen.

So I have made up my mind (while I still have one) to refrain from watching or listening to any more Republican debates. If I want to expose myself to stock phrases such as “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem” or “corporations are shipping jobs overseas because of the high corporate tax rates here”, I can hear them on the Daily Show…..right before Jon Stewart ‘s crew shoots them full of holes.

However, I have to comment on one sorta creepy aspect. The candidates were all given a chance to introduce themselves and say a little somethin’-somethin’. First up: Rick Santorum.

“I’m Rick Santorum. I served 12 years representing Pennsylvania in the United States Senate, but I also have substantial executive experience making the tough decisions and balancing budgets and cutting spending. Karen and I are the parents of seven children.”

At that, he stopped, and got this big, smarmy, expectant smile on his face, like awaiting acknowledgement of this incredible accomplishment/ biological function. And so it went, down the line: one after the other had to engage in reproductive one-upmanship. “I’ve been married for 24 years and have 9 children”, “I’ve got 5 children AND 3 grandchildren”, “I’ve got a husband (who is also my stylist), 6 children, and 47 foster children, and am planning an even 100 grandchildren, hoping for at least one token biracial”. Okay, Michelle Bachmann didn’t really say that, but would anyone really be paying enough attention to know if she did?

What is with this pride in child production? I’m sorry to say that the crowd gave the applause and acknowledgement for which they appeared to be waiting. But maybe it was because they honestly knew that this was going to be the high point of the debate for most of them. Sorry, but it just really creeped me out.

Except for when they got to Newt Gingrich, who obviously believed that it was best to leave out mention of anything having to do with marriage or children, and just looked uncomfortable. That was funny.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite] What dopus came up w just say no.[/quote]

Nancy Reagan.

Actually, a college student from University of South Florida came up with it, I think in the late ’70s, as part of a drug prevention program competition (why pay for professionals when you can sucker students into working for free). Nancy Reagan apparently thought it quite catchy, and took it upon herself to ensure that the billboards, K-12 educational materials, and American airwaves were saturated with the slogan (apparently, the people in charge of all those media weren’t able to “Just say no” to Nancy).

Speaking of annoying ’80s simplistic antidrug slogans, anyone remember the antidrugapaloozza “Get High on Yourself” broadcast on NBC? Dreamt up by the coke-frenzied brain of legendary film producer Robert Evans as part of a community service sentence for a major cocaine bust, it features scenes of a totally stratospherically-high Evans onstage with his new BFF Nancy Reagan thanking him for his anti-drug efforts. I mean, didn’t anyone suspect that Bob might be skipping his Narcotics Anonymous meetings when his 20-second public-service announcement evolved into something akin to an Olympics opening ceremony?

[quote=walterwhite] My antidrug discussions are also kinda detailed, involving drug purity, hormonal testosterone disruption, I like this one, seems good to attack anything that attacks masculinity. Mental developmental delays…seems better than just say no which didn’t work for me. The immediate kidlike response to just say no is, uh, why?[/quote]

Ah, critical thinking on the kid’s part. I like it, scaredy.

[quote=walterwhite] I try not to oversell the downside on drugs , acknowledging supershort term potential benefits buy then come down hard on the medium longterm issues…..Hopefully like their pa they’ll get paralysis by analysis on ghe issue of ingesting illegal substances.[/quote]

You’re going about this all wrong. Trot on down to UCSD School of Medicine, and ask them for archival footage of patients who’ve been doing heroin for a year. You want film of them shooting up, which will make your kid wonder why they are going to so much trouble to get a drug that makes them immediately fall asleep, only to awaken a couple hours later in serious discomfort because they need more. If your kids respond by saying that they’ve heard that heroin gives the most awesome high ever, you can tell them the truth: Yes, for a few days, perhaps. And then you spend the rest of your life chasing the sensation of that first smack high.

Then the coup de grace: sit your kids down for about 2 or 3 hours of film showing addicts going through cold-turkey medication-free withdrawal. Make sure to get film of addicts for whom this is the 3rd or 4th detox, and inform your kids of this, so that they know that the addict was fully aware that he was going to have to go through this agony again the last time he started using. It really drives home the point of how powerless humans are over this stuff, and that you truly give up all rights to control your own body and your own free will. And that once you use, you will never again be free, even if you get clean. You’re either a prisoner of physical addiction (which is evident in the films) or you’re a prisoner of mental addiction (much more difficult to treat) because, even if you’re clean, you are still tortured by the memory of that incomparable first high. And you’re a prisoner of constant fear: that you’ll run out of drug or money, that you’ll do something criminal to get more, that you’ll hurt someone you love who’s standing between you and the drug, or, even if you’ve been clean for five years, that you’ll be unable to turn it down next time it’s available.

Obviously there are limits on age, but I wouldn’t hesitate to show this stuff to an intelligent well-adjusted 8 or 9 year-old. If your kids aren’t intelligent and well-adjusted, you need to have them watch it anyway by the age of 10. Calm, rational talks of an explanatory nature about the dangers of drug use won’t work on a kid who may have a predisposition to addiction (and, unfortunately, most parents don’t know if their kids are predisposed until AFTER they’re addicted). They do have a place at the table, but it’s like trying to discuss the role of voltage-gated sodium channels and ion selectivity in your child’s ability to text: BORRRR-ING for most kids. Children need to be scared into not using drugs by seeing very real effects and outcomes. At this age, they are still young enough to scare. After 10, they become very creative in finding ways to deny the realities to which they are being exposed, or they have helpful friends who inform them that you’re using fake materials.

And some common sense and judgement should be utilized. Obviously, I am describing very severe physical effects from the worst drugs out there: heroin, and to a somewhat lesser effect, methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, synthetic opioids, etc. What’s more, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicted to them. However, we really don’t want our kids using drugs because we can’t tell if they are predisposed to addiction ahead of time. Even if they are not, drug abuse is quite common in the absence of addiction, and the results can be injury or death by allergy, overdose, or substance interaction; intoxication, causing injury/death for others; or failure to seek treatment for conditions alleviated by self-medicating. The best way to do this with kids is to send a message that hits them on all sensory levels: children see/hear images of horrible physical discomfort caused by obvious drug use = in your child’s mind, for years to come, he “knows” if he tries drugs he will have no ability to stop either the physical pain that will result or to keep from using the drug again. Obviously, some of these children will succumb to peer and other pressures and use drugs anyway, but not nearly as many as would have without exposure to the realities of drugs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite] What dopus came up w just say no.[/quote]

Nancy Reagan.

Actually, a college student from University of South Florida came up with it, I think in the late ’70s, as part of a drug prevention program competition (why pay for professionals when you can sucker students into working for free). Nancy Reagan apparently thought it quite catchy, and took it upon herself to ensure that the billboards, K-12 educational materials, and American airwaves were saturated with the slogan (apparently, the people in charge of all those media weren’t able to “Just say no” to Nancy).

Speaking of annoying ’80s simplistic antidrug slogans, anyone remember the antidrugapaloozza “Get High on Yourself” broadcast on NBC? Dreamt up by the coke-frenzied brain of legendary film producer Robert Evans as part of a community service sentence for a major cocaine bust, it features scenes of a totally stratospherically-high Evans onstage with his new BFF Nancy Reagan thanking him for his anti-drug efforts. I mean, didn’t anyone suspect that Bob might be skipping his Narcotics Anonymous meetings when his 20-second public-service announcement evolved into something akin to an Olympics opening ceremony?

[quote=walterwhite] My antidrug discussions are also kinda detailed, involving drug purity, hormonal testosterone disruption, I like this one, seems good to attack anything that attacks masculinity. Mental developmental delays…seems better than just say no which didn’t work for me. The immediate kidlike response to just say no is, uh, why?[/quote]

Ah, critical thinking on the kid’s part. I like it, scaredy.

[quote=walterwhite] I try not to oversell the downside on drugs , acknowledging supershort term potential benefits buy then come down hard on the medium longterm issues…..Hopefully like their pa they’ll get paralysis by analysis on ghe issue of ingesting illegal substances.[/quote]

You’re going about this all wrong. Trot on down to UCSD School of Medicine, and ask them for archival footage of patients who’ve been doing heroin for a year. You want film of them shooting up, which will make your kid wonder why they are going to so much trouble to get a drug that makes them immediately fall asleep, only to awaken a couple hours later in serious discomfort because they need more. If your kids respond by saying that they’ve heard that heroin gives the most awesome high ever, you can tell them the truth: Yes, for a few days, perhaps. And then you spend the rest of your life chasing the sensation of that first smack high.

Then the coup de grace: sit your kids down for about 2 or 3 hours of film showing addicts going through cold-turkey medication-free withdrawal. Make sure to get film of addicts for whom this is the 3rd or 4th detox, and inform your kids of this, so that they know that the addict was fully aware that he was going to have to go through this agony again the last time he started using. It really drives home the point of how powerless humans are over this stuff, and that you truly give up all rights to control your own body and your own free will. And that once you use, you will never again be free, even if you get clean. You’re either a prisoner of physical addiction (which is evident in the films) or you’re a prisoner of mental addiction (much more difficult to treat) because, even if you’re clean, you are still tortured by the memory of that incomparable first high. And you’re a prisoner of constant fear: that you’ll run out of drug or money, that you’ll do something criminal to get more, that you’ll hurt someone you love who’s standing between you and the drug, or, even if you’ve been clean for five years, that you’ll be unable to turn it down next time it’s available.

Obviously there are limits on age, but I wouldn’t hesitate to show this stuff to an intelligent well-adjusted 8 or 9 year-old. If your kids aren’t intelligent and well-adjusted, you need to have them watch it anyway by the age of 10. Calm, rational talks of an explanatory nature about the dangers of drug use won’t work on a kid who may have a predisposition to addiction (and, unfortunately, most parents don’t know if their kids are predisposed until AFTER they’re addicted). They do have a place at the table, but it’s like trying to discuss the role of voltage-gated sodium channels and ion selectivity in your child’s ability to text: BORRRR-ING for most kids. Children need to be scared into not using drugs by seeing very real effects and outcomes. At this age, they are still young enough to scare. After 10, they become very creative in finding ways to deny the realities to which they are being exposed, or they have helpful friends who inform them that you’re using fake materials.

And some common sense and judgement should be utilized. Obviously, I am describing very severe physical effects from the worst drugs out there: heroin, and to a somewhat lesser effect, methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, synthetic opioids, etc. What’s more, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicted to them. However, we really don’t want our kids using drugs because we can’t tell if they are predisposed to addiction ahead of time. Even if they are not, drug abuse is quite common in the absence of addiction, and the results can be injury or death by allergy, overdose, or substance interaction; intoxication, causing injury/death for others; or failure to seek treatment for conditions alleviated by self-medicating. The best way to do this with kids is to send a message that hits them on all sensory levels: children see/hear images of horrible physical discomfort caused by obvious drug use = in your child’s mind, for years to come, he “knows” if he tries drugs he will have no ability to stop either the physical pain that will result or to keep from using the drug again. Obviously, some of these children will succumb to peer and other pressures and use drugs anyway, but not nearly as many as would have without exposure to the realities of drugs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite] What dopus came up w just say no.[/quote]

Nancy Reagan.

Actually, a college student from University of South Florida came up with it, I think in the late ’70s, as part of a drug prevention program competition (why pay for professionals when you can sucker students into working for free). Nancy Reagan apparently thought it quite catchy, and took it upon herself to ensure that the billboards, K-12 educational materials, and American airwaves were saturated with the slogan (apparently, the people in charge of all those media weren’t able to “Just say no” to Nancy).

Speaking of annoying ’80s simplistic antidrug slogans, anyone remember the antidrugapaloozza “Get High on Yourself” broadcast on NBC? Dreamt up by the coke-frenzied brain of legendary film producer Robert Evans as part of a community service sentence for a major cocaine bust, it features scenes of a totally stratospherically-high Evans onstage with his new BFF Nancy Reagan thanking him for his anti-drug efforts. I mean, didn’t anyone suspect that Bob might be skipping his Narcotics Anonymous meetings when his 20-second public-service announcement evolved into something akin to an Olympics opening ceremony?

[quote=walterwhite] My antidrug discussions are also kinda detailed, involving drug purity, hormonal testosterone disruption, I like this one, seems good to attack anything that attacks masculinity. Mental developmental delays…seems better than just say no which didn’t work for me. The immediate kidlike response to just say no is, uh, why?[/quote]

Ah, critical thinking on the kid’s part. I like it, scaredy.

[quote=walterwhite] I try not to oversell the downside on drugs , acknowledging supershort term potential benefits buy then come down hard on the medium longterm issues…..Hopefully like their pa they’ll get paralysis by analysis on ghe issue of ingesting illegal substances.[/quote]

You’re going about this all wrong. Trot on down to UCSD School of Medicine, and ask them for archival footage of patients who’ve been doing heroin for a year. You want film of them shooting up, which will make your kid wonder why they are going to so much trouble to get a drug that makes them immediately fall asleep, only to awaken a couple hours later in serious discomfort because they need more. If your kids respond by saying that they’ve heard that heroin gives the most awesome high ever, you can tell them the truth: Yes, for a few days, perhaps. And then you spend the rest of your life chasing the sensation of that first smack high.

Then the coup de grace: sit your kids down for about 2 or 3 hours of film showing addicts going through cold-turkey medication-free withdrawal. Make sure to get film of addicts for whom this is the 3rd or 4th detox, and inform your kids of this, so that they know that the addict was fully aware that he was going to have to go through this agony again the last time he started using. It really drives home the point of how powerless humans are over this stuff, and that you truly give up all rights to control your own body and your own free will. And that once you use, you will never again be free, even if you get clean. You’re either a prisoner of physical addiction (which is evident in the films) or you’re a prisoner of mental addiction (much more difficult to treat) because, even if you’re clean, you are still tortured by the memory of that incomparable first high. And you’re a prisoner of constant fear: that you’ll run out of drug or money, that you’ll do something criminal to get more, that you’ll hurt someone you love who’s standing between you and the drug, or, even if you’ve been clean for five years, that you’ll be unable to turn it down next time it’s available.

Obviously there are limits on age, but I wouldn’t hesitate to show this stuff to an intelligent well-adjusted 8 or 9 year-old. If your kids aren’t intelligent and well-adjusted, you need to have them watch it anyway by the age of 10. Calm, rational talks of an explanatory nature about the dangers of drug use won’t work on a kid who may have a predisposition to addiction (and, unfortunately, most parents don’t know if their kids are predisposed until AFTER they’re addicted). They do have a place at the table, but it’s like trying to discuss the role of voltage-gated sodium channels and ion selectivity in your child’s ability to text: BORRRR-ING for most kids. Children need to be scared into not using drugs by seeing very real effects and outcomes. At this age, they are still young enough to scare. After 10, they become very creative in finding ways to deny the realities to which they are being exposed, or they have helpful friends who inform them that you’re using fake materials.

And some common sense and judgement should be utilized. Obviously, I am describing very severe physical effects from the worst drugs out there: heroin, and to a somewhat lesser effect, methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, synthetic opioids, etc. What’s more, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicted to them. However, we really don’t want our kids using drugs because we can’t tell if they are predisposed to addiction ahead of time. Even if they are not, drug abuse is quite common in the absence of addiction, and the results can be injury or death by allergy, overdose, or substance interaction; intoxication, causing injury/death for others; or failure to seek treatment for conditions alleviated by self-medicating. The best way to do this with kids is to send a message that hits them on all sensory levels: children see/hear images of horrible physical discomfort caused by obvious drug use = in your child’s mind, for years to come, he “knows” if he tries drugs he will have no ability to stop either the physical pain that will result or to keep from using the drug again. Obviously, some of these children will succumb to peer and other pressures and use drugs anyway, but not nearly as many as would have without exposure to the realities of drugs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite] What dopus came up w just say no.[/quote]

Nancy Reagan.

Actually, a college student from University of South Florida came up with it, I think in the late ’70s, as part of a drug prevention program competition (why pay for professionals when you can sucker students into working for free). Nancy Reagan apparently thought it quite catchy, and took it upon herself to ensure that the billboards, K-12 educational materials, and American airwaves were saturated with the slogan (apparently, the people in charge of all those media weren’t able to “Just say no” to Nancy).

Speaking of annoying ’80s simplistic antidrug slogans, anyone remember the antidrugapaloozza “Get High on Yourself” broadcast on NBC? Dreamt up by the coke-frenzied brain of legendary film producer Robert Evans as part of a community service sentence for a major cocaine bust, it features scenes of a totally stratospherically-high Evans onstage with his new BFF Nancy Reagan thanking him for his anti-drug efforts. I mean, didn’t anyone suspect that Bob might be skipping his Narcotics Anonymous meetings when his 20-second public-service announcement evolved into something akin to an Olympics opening ceremony?

[quote=walterwhite] My antidrug discussions are also kinda detailed, involving drug purity, hormonal testosterone disruption, I like this one, seems good to attack anything that attacks masculinity. Mental developmental delays…seems better than just say no which didn’t work for me. The immediate kidlike response to just say no is, uh, why?[/quote]

Ah, critical thinking on the kid’s part. I like it, scaredy.

[quote=walterwhite] I try not to oversell the downside on drugs , acknowledging supershort term potential benefits buy then come down hard on the medium longterm issues…..Hopefully like their pa they’ll get paralysis by analysis on ghe issue of ingesting illegal substances.[/quote]

You’re going about this all wrong. Trot on down to UCSD School of Medicine, and ask them for archival footage of patients who’ve been doing heroin for a year. You want film of them shooting up, which will make your kid wonder why they are going to so much trouble to get a drug that makes them immediately fall asleep, only to awaken a couple hours later in serious discomfort because they need more. If your kids respond by saying that they’ve heard that heroin gives the most awesome high ever, you can tell them the truth: Yes, for a few days, perhaps. And then you spend the rest of your life chasing the sensation of that first smack high.

Then the coup de grace: sit your kids down for about 2 or 3 hours of film showing addicts going through cold-turkey medication-free withdrawal. Make sure to get film of addicts for whom this is the 3rd or 4th detox, and inform your kids of this, so that they know that the addict was fully aware that he was going to have to go through this agony again the last time he started using. It really drives home the point of how powerless humans are over this stuff, and that you truly give up all rights to control your own body and your own free will. And that once you use, you will never again be free, even if you get clean. You’re either a prisoner of physical addiction (which is evident in the films) or you’re a prisoner of mental addiction (much more difficult to treat) because, even if you’re clean, you are still tortured by the memory of that incomparable first high. And you’re a prisoner of constant fear: that you’ll run out of drug or money, that you’ll do something criminal to get more, that you’ll hurt someone you love who’s standing between you and the drug, or, even if you’ve been clean for five years, that you’ll be unable to turn it down next time it’s available.

Obviously there are limits on age, but I wouldn’t hesitate to show this stuff to an intelligent well-adjusted 8 or 9 year-old. If your kids aren’t intelligent and well-adjusted, you need to have them watch it anyway by the age of 10. Calm, rational talks of an explanatory nature about the dangers of drug use won’t work on a kid who may have a predisposition to addiction (and, unfortunately, most parents don’t know if their kids are predisposed until AFTER they’re addicted). They do have a place at the table, but it’s like trying to discuss the role of voltage-gated sodium channels and ion selectivity in your child’s ability to text: BORRRR-ING for most kids. Children need to be scared into not using drugs by seeing very real effects and outcomes. At this age, they are still young enough to scare. After 10, they become very creative in finding ways to deny the realities to which they are being exposed, or they have helpful friends who inform them that you’re using fake materials.

And some common sense and judgement should be utilized. Obviously, I am describing very severe physical effects from the worst drugs out there: heroin, and to a somewhat lesser effect, methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, synthetic opioids, etc. What’s more, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicted to them. However, we really don’t want our kids using drugs because we can’t tell if they are predisposed to addiction ahead of time. Even if they are not, drug abuse is quite common in the absence of addiction, and the results can be injury or death by allergy, overdose, or substance interaction; intoxication, causing injury/death for others; or failure to seek treatment for conditions alleviated by self-medicating. The best way to do this with kids is to send a message that hits them on all sensory levels: children see/hear images of horrible physical discomfort caused by obvious drug use = in your child’s mind, for years to come, he “knows” if he tries drugs he will have no ability to stop either the physical pain that will result or to keep from using the drug again. Obviously, some of these children will succumb to peer and other pressures and use drugs anyway, but not nearly as many as would have without exposure to the realities of drugs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite] What dopus came up w just say no.[/quote]

Nancy Reagan.

Actually, a college student from University of South Florida came up with it, I think in the late ’70s, as part of a drug prevention program competition (why pay for professionals when you can sucker students into working for free). Nancy Reagan apparently thought it quite catchy, and took it upon herself to ensure that the billboards, K-12 educational materials, and American airwaves were saturated with the slogan (apparently, the people in charge of all those media weren’t able to “Just say no” to Nancy).

Speaking of annoying ’80s simplistic antidrug slogans, anyone remember the antidrugapaloozza “Get High on Yourself” broadcast on NBC? Dreamt up by the coke-frenzied brain of legendary film producer Robert Evans as part of a community service sentence for a major cocaine bust, it features scenes of a totally stratospherically-high Evans onstage with his new BFF Nancy Reagan thanking him for his anti-drug efforts. I mean, didn’t anyone suspect that Bob might be skipping his Narcotics Anonymous meetings when his 20-second public-service announcement evolved into something akin to an Olympics opening ceremony?

[quote=walterwhite] My antidrug discussions are also kinda detailed, involving drug purity, hormonal testosterone disruption, I like this one, seems good to attack anything that attacks masculinity. Mental developmental delays…seems better than just say no which didn’t work for me. The immediate kidlike response to just say no is, uh, why?[/quote]

Ah, critical thinking on the kid’s part. I like it, scaredy.

[quote=walterwhite] I try not to oversell the downside on drugs , acknowledging supershort term potential benefits buy then come down hard on the medium longterm issues…..Hopefully like their pa they’ll get paralysis by analysis on ghe issue of ingesting illegal substances.[/quote]

You’re going about this all wrong. Trot on down to UCSD School of Medicine, and ask them for archival footage of patients who’ve been doing heroin for a year. You want film of them shooting up, which will make your kid wonder why they are going to so much trouble to get a drug that makes them immediately fall asleep, only to awaken a couple hours later in serious discomfort because they need more. If your kids respond by saying that they’ve heard that heroin gives the most awesome high ever, you can tell them the truth: Yes, for a few days, perhaps. And then you spend the rest of your life chasing the sensation of that first smack high.

Then the coup de grace: sit your kids down for about 2 or 3 hours of film showing addicts going through cold-turkey medication-free withdrawal. Make sure to get film of addicts for whom this is the 3rd or 4th detox, and inform your kids of this, so that they know that the addict was fully aware that he was going to have to go through this agony again the last time he started using. It really drives home the point of how powerless humans are over this stuff, and that you truly give up all rights to control your own body and your own free will. And that once you use, you will never again be free, even if you get clean. You’re either a prisoner of physical addiction (which is evident in the films) or you’re a prisoner of mental addiction (much more difficult to treat) because, even if you’re clean, you are still tortured by the memory of that incomparable first high. And you’re a prisoner of constant fear: that you’ll run out of drug or money, that you’ll do something criminal to get more, that you’ll hurt someone you love who’s standing between you and the drug, or, even if you’ve been clean for five years, that you’ll be unable to turn it down next time it’s available.

Obviously there are limits on age, but I wouldn’t hesitate to show this stuff to an intelligent well-adjusted 8 or 9 year-old. If your kids aren’t intelligent and well-adjusted, you need to have them watch it anyway by the age of 10. Calm, rational talks of an explanatory nature about the dangers of drug use won’t work on a kid who may have a predisposition to addiction (and, unfortunately, most parents don’t know if their kids are predisposed until AFTER they’re addicted). They do have a place at the table, but it’s like trying to discuss the role of voltage-gated sodium channels and ion selectivity in your child’s ability to text: BORRRR-ING for most kids. Children need to be scared into not using drugs by seeing very real effects and outcomes. At this age, they are still young enough to scare. After 10, they become very creative in finding ways to deny the realities to which they are being exposed, or they have helpful friends who inform them that you’re using fake materials.

And some common sense and judgement should be utilized. Obviously, I am describing very severe physical effects from the worst drugs out there: heroin, and to a somewhat lesser effect, methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, synthetic opioids, etc. What’s more, the majority of people who use drugs do not become addicted to them. However, we really don’t want our kids using drugs because we can’t tell if they are predisposed to addiction ahead of time. Even if they are not, drug abuse is quite common in the absence of addiction, and the results can be injury or death by allergy, overdose, or substance interaction; intoxication, causing injury/death for others; or failure to seek treatment for conditions alleviated by self-medicating. The best way to do this with kids is to send a message that hits them on all sensory levels: children see/hear images of horrible physical discomfort caused by obvious drug use = in your child’s mind, for years to come, he “knows” if he tries drugs he will have no ability to stop either the physical pain that will result or to keep from using the drug again. Obviously, some of these children will succumb to peer and other pressures and use drugs anyway, but not nearly as many as would have without exposure to the realities of drugs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KIBU][quote=eavesdropper]We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.[/quote]

I rarely read a long post. On long posts I usually read a word of each paragraph and fill in the blank with who knows what. But the piece above by Eaves is great that I had to read the whole thing and learned very interesting points. Yep I always wondered why many complained about the “liberal” media repressing information…etc. Eaves gave some interesting insights to think about.[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words, KIBU. I do find the continuous accusation that the MSM “suppresses” news that is “unfavorable to liberals” or “favorable to conservatives” quite disturbing. The spreading of this falsehood by vested interests, and its uptake by their followers has led to the current reality that people are creating their own “alternate realities” from rumors that are passed from one source to another, and then complaining that the press is suppressing the “true story”.

When I evaluate the profound change that has taken place in our culture over the past 15 years, I am shocked and saddened by what we have allowed to slip away, and by what we have helped to develop in its place.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KIBU][quote=eavesdropper]We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.[/quote]

I rarely read a long post. On long posts I usually read a word of each paragraph and fill in the blank with who knows what. But the piece above by Eaves is great that I had to read the whole thing and learned very interesting points. Yep I always wondered why many complained about the “liberal” media repressing information…etc. Eaves gave some interesting insights to think about.[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words, KIBU. I do find the continuous accusation that the MSM “suppresses” news that is “unfavorable to liberals” or “favorable to conservatives” quite disturbing. The spreading of this falsehood by vested interests, and its uptake by their followers has led to the current reality that people are creating their own “alternate realities” from rumors that are passed from one source to another, and then complaining that the press is suppressing the “true story”.

When I evaluate the profound change that has taken place in our culture over the past 15 years, I am shocked and saddened by what we have allowed to slip away, and by what we have helped to develop in its place.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KIBU][quote=eavesdropper]We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.[/quote]

I rarely read a long post. On long posts I usually read a word of each paragraph and fill in the blank with who knows what. But the piece above by Eaves is great that I had to read the whole thing and learned very interesting points. Yep I always wondered why many complained about the “liberal” media repressing information…etc. Eaves gave some interesting insights to think about.[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words, KIBU. I do find the continuous accusation that the MSM “suppresses” news that is “unfavorable to liberals” or “favorable to conservatives” quite disturbing. The spreading of this falsehood by vested interests, and its uptake by their followers has led to the current reality that people are creating their own “alternate realities” from rumors that are passed from one source to another, and then complaining that the press is suppressing the “true story”.

When I evaluate the profound change that has taken place in our culture over the past 15 years, I am shocked and saddened by what we have allowed to slip away, and by what we have helped to develop in its place.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KIBU][quote=eavesdropper]We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.[/quote]

I rarely read a long post. On long posts I usually read a word of each paragraph and fill in the blank with who knows what. But the piece above by Eaves is great that I had to read the whole thing and learned very interesting points. Yep I always wondered why many complained about the “liberal” media repressing information…etc. Eaves gave some interesting insights to think about.[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words, KIBU. I do find the continuous accusation that the MSM “suppresses” news that is “unfavorable to liberals” or “favorable to conservatives” quite disturbing. The spreading of this falsehood by vested interests, and its uptake by their followers has led to the current reality that people are creating their own “alternate realities” from rumors that are passed from one source to another, and then complaining that the press is suppressing the “true story”.

When I evaluate the profound change that has taken place in our culture over the past 15 years, I am shocked and saddened by what we have allowed to slip away, and by what we have helped to develop in its place.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KIBU][quote=eavesdropper]We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.[/quote]

I rarely read a long post. On long posts I usually read a word of each paragraph and fill in the blank with who knows what. But the piece above by Eaves is great that I had to read the whole thing and learned very interesting points. Yep I always wondered why many complained about the “liberal” media repressing information…etc. Eaves gave some interesting insights to think about.[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words, KIBU. I do find the continuous accusation that the MSM “suppresses” news that is “unfavorable to liberals” or “favorable to conservatives” quite disturbing. The spreading of this falsehood by vested interests, and its uptake by their followers has led to the current reality that people are creating their own “alternate realities” from rumors that are passed from one source to another, and then complaining that the press is suppressing the “true story”.

When I evaluate the profound change that has taken place in our culture over the past 15 years, I am shocked and saddened by what we have allowed to slip away, and by what we have helped to develop in its place.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html%5B/quote%5D

faterik, I hadn’t read these when I penned my response to Allan last night, in which I took exception to Mr. Hastings’ dogged insistence on aiming his spotlight of blame on the U.K’s “welfare class”. I stated that, while I realized that Mr. Hastings was discussing the youth of England, with whom I am not on first-name basis, I am familiar with the qualities of American youth, and while they are scarily similar to those mentioned by Mr. Hastings, they are not limited to the youth of our “welfare class”, but fairly evenly distributed across all socioeconomic classes and cultural situations.

I’m not sure of your reason for including these additional articles, but I sincerely hope that it was not to support the points made by Max Hastings. Despite his propensity to focus solely on youthful members of a single socioeconomic segment of society, he did attempt to delve a bit deeper into the subject matter, while refraining from seriously over-the-top stereotyping, than the title of the piece would have us believe.

The same cannot be said for the articles by Melanie Phillips and Ann Coulter. I fail to see how anyone of reasonable intellect can take the missives of these two “writers” seriously. Ms. Coulter’s pieces are so badly written and poorly supported that, every time I manage to read one, it seems that the author has inserted a subliminal message that is screaming, “This is a fake, just like all the ones that came before, and I’m just waiting for one of you idiots to call me on it so that I’ll be forced out of journalism, thereby permitting my fulltime indulgence in bulimia and my black leather fetish.”

Likewise, Ms. Phillips performs an admirable job of tying up the reasons and blame for the rioting in one neat little package of anger and irrationality. Indeed, I confess to being intrigued by the titles of many of her other columns, the links to which conveniently placed close by. Reading one after the other was like consuming a box of cheap chocolates: the outside appearance of the first lures you into its consumption, but the lack of quality ingredients leaves you feeling unsatisfied and a little queasy, and by the time you’ve eaten several, you come to the realization that they all taste the same, and that you’re sick because you’ve consumed way too much crap.

Like Ms. Coulter’s, Ms. Phillips’ “message” is composed of the same incredibly simplistic stereotypes and catch-phrases, and unfettered by anything resembling academic research or empirical evidence. Like Ms. Coulter, she delivers that same message in a violent and hurtful fashion that leaves permanent damage. Like Ms. Coulter, she is noncontrite and unapologetic, unyielding in her insistence that she is right, and defiant in her belief that she is relevant. Unfortunately, Ms. Phillips’ and Ms. Coulter’s editors, and those of other media outlets appear only too willing to reinforce those beliefs. In the process of giving these bitter, deluded women, who are completely devoid of writing talent and incapable of critical thought, an enormous platform from which they are able to continue the dissemination of their vitriolic prose.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html%5B/quote%5D

faterik, I hadn’t read these when I penned my response to Allan last night, in which I took exception to Mr. Hastings’ dogged insistence on aiming his spotlight of blame on the U.K’s “welfare class”. I stated that, while I realized that Mr. Hastings was discussing the youth of England, with whom I am not on first-name basis, I am familiar with the qualities of American youth, and while they are scarily similar to those mentioned by Mr. Hastings, they are not limited to the youth of our “welfare class”, but fairly evenly distributed across all socioeconomic classes and cultural situations.

I’m not sure of your reason for including these additional articles, but I sincerely hope that it was not to support the points made by Max Hastings. Despite his propensity to focus solely on youthful members of a single socioeconomic segment of society, he did attempt to delve a bit deeper into the subject matter, while refraining from seriously over-the-top stereotyping, than the title of the piece would have us believe.

The same cannot be said for the articles by Melanie Phillips and Ann Coulter. I fail to see how anyone of reasonable intellect can take the missives of these two “writers” seriously. Ms. Coulter’s pieces are so badly written and poorly supported that, every time I manage to read one, it seems that the author has inserted a subliminal message that is screaming, “This is a fake, just like all the ones that came before, and I’m just waiting for one of you idiots to call me on it so that I’ll be forced out of journalism, thereby permitting my fulltime indulgence in bulimia and my black leather fetish.”

Likewise, Ms. Phillips performs an admirable job of tying up the reasons and blame for the rioting in one neat little package of anger and irrationality. Indeed, I confess to being intrigued by the titles of many of her other columns, the links to which conveniently placed close by. Reading one after the other was like consuming a box of cheap chocolates: the outside appearance of the first lures you into its consumption, but the lack of quality ingredients leaves you feeling unsatisfied and a little queasy, and by the time you’ve eaten several, you come to the realization that they all taste the same, and that you’re sick because you’ve consumed way too much crap.

Like Ms. Coulter’s, Ms. Phillips’ “message” is composed of the same incredibly simplistic stereotypes and catch-phrases, and unfettered by anything resembling academic research or empirical evidence. Like Ms. Coulter, she delivers that same message in a violent and hurtful fashion that leaves permanent damage. Like Ms. Coulter, she is noncontrite and unapologetic, unyielding in her insistence that she is right, and defiant in her belief that she is relevant. Unfortunately, Ms. Phillips’ and Ms. Coulter’s editors, and those of other media outlets appear only too willing to reinforce those beliefs. In the process of giving these bitter, deluded women, who are completely devoid of writing talent and incapable of critical thought, an enormous platform from which they are able to continue the dissemination of their vitriolic prose.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html%5B/quote%5D

faterik, I hadn’t read these when I penned my response to Allan last night, in which I took exception to Mr. Hastings’ dogged insistence on aiming his spotlight of blame on the U.K’s “welfare class”. I stated that, while I realized that Mr. Hastings was discussing the youth of England, with whom I am not on first-name basis, I am familiar with the qualities of American youth, and while they are scarily similar to those mentioned by Mr. Hastings, they are not limited to the youth of our “welfare class”, but fairly evenly distributed across all socioeconomic classes and cultural situations.

I’m not sure of your reason for including these additional articles, but I sincerely hope that it was not to support the points made by Max Hastings. Despite his propensity to focus solely on youthful members of a single socioeconomic segment of society, he did attempt to delve a bit deeper into the subject matter, while refraining from seriously over-the-top stereotyping, than the title of the piece would have us believe.

The same cannot be said for the articles by Melanie Phillips and Ann Coulter. I fail to see how anyone of reasonable intellect can take the missives of these two “writers” seriously. Ms. Coulter’s pieces are so badly written and poorly supported that, every time I manage to read one, it seems that the author has inserted a subliminal message that is screaming, “This is a fake, just like all the ones that came before, and I’m just waiting for one of you idiots to call me on it so that I’ll be forced out of journalism, thereby permitting my fulltime indulgence in bulimia and my black leather fetish.”

Likewise, Ms. Phillips performs an admirable job of tying up the reasons and blame for the rioting in one neat little package of anger and irrationality. Indeed, I confess to being intrigued by the titles of many of her other columns, the links to which conveniently placed close by. Reading one after the other was like consuming a box of cheap chocolates: the outside appearance of the first lures you into its consumption, but the lack of quality ingredients leaves you feeling unsatisfied and a little queasy, and by the time you’ve eaten several, you come to the realization that they all taste the same, and that you’re sick because you’ve consumed way too much crap.

Like Ms. Coulter’s, Ms. Phillips’ “message” is composed of the same incredibly simplistic stereotypes and catch-phrases, and unfettered by anything resembling academic research or empirical evidence. Like Ms. Coulter, she delivers that same message in a violent and hurtful fashion that leaves permanent damage. Like Ms. Coulter, she is noncontrite and unapologetic, unyielding in her insistence that she is right, and defiant in her belief that she is relevant. Unfortunately, Ms. Phillips’ and Ms. Coulter’s editors, and those of other media outlets appear only too willing to reinforce those beliefs. In the process of giving these bitter, deluded women, who are completely devoid of writing talent and incapable of critical thought, an enormous platform from which they are able to continue the dissemination of their vitriolic prose.

[Author]

Posts