Screw Uncle Sam! If he doesn't like what I have to say he can KISS MAH GRITS. This may not be the "free" country it likes to brag that it is, but I am a free spirit beholden to no one. No government is gonna gag me.

DAnnemark - I personally do not fear the government or I would not write about certain things that I have commented on. But the idea the spying eyes of the government are watching me watch TV "Freaks" me out somewhat. Not that I have something to hide, but I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea the spy agencies have free access to observe me whenever they choose to. I read an article earlier today when I was doing some research on Google and read where one gentleman made a statement on Facebook that the American Public should stand up to the government in every possible way and mentioned Anarchy as a possible solution sometime in the future. He was arrested for posting a threat against the Federal Government and inciting people to rebel. Sorry I did not write down the web site so it could be read by others. Now it makes me wonder whether I should stop making antigovernment comments on this Blog and others. If they will go so far as to arrest an American Citizen for speaking his thoughts without actually recruiting people or performing an act against the government, am I safe stating my thoughts online. It may sound like I am getting paranoid, yet how can someone use free speech to make a comment when they might get arrested for it. I also read an article in the local newspaper about a man who was playing a game with his sister’s online using Facebook and was arrested for making threats concerning the mayor when it was part of the game! Someone read his comments on Facebook and turned him into the police and he was arrested. He was locked up and put in the local Hospital psych ward and was ordered to remain there for 72 hours. At the end of the 72 hours the doctor wanted to keep him locked up for additional evaluation! Some of his friends from the Marine Corp. hired a lawyer and he was released after petitioning the court. He owned 2 businesses and was never in any trouble. I hate to admit it but it has me thinking twice when I want to call for protesting against the government. And I am not normally a person who gets paranoid about the government...

So what if the government eaves drops on you? At least that creates an easy well paid job for someone.

Don't worry, they can't hear everything everyone says; there's not enough people in the government. There not going to hire half of us to listen to the other half. Shame though. That might resolve the unemployment problem.

And besides what are you afraid they might overhear, your mother's french toast recipe? Perhaps your secret plans to design and build a Doomsday Cannon. Or, maybe how you cheat on your taxes by claiming your furry cat as a dependent?

My mother had a great piece of advice. She always told me, "If you don't have anything good to say about anyone don't say anything at all. The walls have ears and negative energy has a way of coming back to you and biting you in the a...."

I have lived a long and happy life full of political discourse without any fear of anything I have ever said. In fact, I'd love it if Uncle Sam listened to what I have to say because I'd give them an ear full. I'd love nothing better than for the Government to monitor my every word. I'd even be happy to repeat myself and send them a written transcript if they didn't get it down right the first time. If I were you, I'd say everything like someone is listening. It's probably better for you if you did anyway.

And don't be afraid to speak up, speak clearly, and speak your mind.

Don't let fear or paranoia ruin your New Years celebration or your first amendment rights.

2012 was a long year for us all. You should be grateful its finally over and we're all still here.

Happy New Year buddy!

And to everyone else! Cheers!!

Thanx, Ken! I appreciate that a lot. @☮

Palindromedary - As I read the comments I realized I too am wrong at times and the way I handle things. Your overall picture of the government using appliances is correct in specific situations. And obviously, not many people agreed with me!Ha. Your right, things I scoufed at now appear to have a point of truth to them. You were right about the manikins having cameras in their eye sockets, I read that as well! So I guess there is room for growth in all of us. I tried to change my picture and end up with the same mug shot no matter what I do. Maybe it is just the system...Have a good one, Ken. Yeah, it seems Hartmann needs to have his I.T. take a look at the way the response gives the wrong ## to the comment one is addressing!

I appreciate the opinions and comments stated on this particular Blog. I would like to make a few statements to clarify my position.

1st. - The equation of aggression and I.Q. I was involved in an accident where I was injured severely. The insurance company required me to take an I.Q., exam and my results were that I registered in the top twenty percentile. So even though the article you refer to found a correlation between aggressive men and low intelligence, I doubt if that applied to all men in general. Many of our top leaders came from a career in the military where aggressiveness is seen as a quality not a detriment to their career. As a matter of personal record I do work out every day and walk five to seven miles a day. Physical workouts are good for the mind and body and as a sixty year old, I am in better shape than most young people who sit on their butts all day. Being an old man is a matter of perception, one should not dismiss someone for their age, because in many situations that "old man", is more capable than many young men out there.

2nd. My point about the Pharma Corporations is that by far they do more good than harm to mankind. All salesmen and women who push their products (Cars to Computers) do so for profit and are rewarded in sales. So it is no long shot that doctors say the Pharma Sales People are aggressive in pushing their product. It is their job to sell whatever product they "pushing" in the market place.

3rd. I am not praising War; I am acknowledging the blood, sweat and sacrifice our military personnel spend on keeping this nation safe. We actually do have real enemies that would like nothing more than to see our nation fall under their heels. I am proud of the men I served with in Vietnam and I am proud of the sacrifices we had to make. I am not a consciences objector to war, I am a warrior who believes the military has it place in our society and to look down on our fighting men and women is a disgrace to ones-self and our country. I am sorry to hear that you as an ex- officer feels our military should be seen in less than a noble light because of the criminals in Washington have created situations that the military has to deal with in order to serve this nation.

4th. I live in S. California not AK. Or anywhere near that part of the country. I own weapons and respect your desire that you do not need any. But if we ever have the type of natural disaster that would allow looters and "the bad guys", to roam the streets in search of prey, neither I nor my family will be unprotected. The police are limited in their ability to protect all the civilians in their area should a major earthquake strike us here in an earthquake zone. The only thing that keeps the "bad guys" from committing heinous crimes is their fear that we may be armed and ready to use our weapons. I too hope that situation never befalls me it would bother me to kill in a non-war zone situation.

5th. I have spent the last several hours searching Google for information about the government both local and federal using listening devices in our homes and appliances. I read what Gen. Petraius stated as the head of the C.I.A. in 2011 concerning new technology being used to observe those who would use terrorism against us. The appliances he was referring too are those new appliances that are controlled from ones computer such as smart refrigerators, home heating, smart electrical boxes that regulate and monitor electrical usage in our homes and TV’s that you can use the internet to operate. There was one article about a man finding a small camera devise and microphone in his cable box. It was a hoax. You can verify that as well on Google. Will the government try to use devices in the future to monitor us, let’s hope we will still have protection under the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Yet, who knows what the Supreme Court will do in the future to our civil rights.

6th. I do agree that I at times react in an aggressive manner when I read something someone has written that I feel is demeaning or a generalization as in all people who use antidepressants should be monitored and not allowed to own guns! I thankfully do not have to use this type of medication, but I have people that I am close to that do use an antidepressant because of a biological imbalance. And not all antidepressants are of the same category as Provsacs (spelling?) that do cause some people to react in a physically violent manner. But, these people are monitored for side effects of all types that could be life threatening. I defend the Pharma Corporations because they produce such a large array of drugs that help cancer patients to people who have many other illnesses.

7th. If you make a highly confrontational statement, you should be aware of the fact someone is going to answer that with equal zeal and content that might be seen as offensive. As far as Hartmann and the way he quiets his guests is he simply changes the subject or reference that they are speaking about. To be politically correct is to simply ignore what someone has said and respond in a calm and non-alarming manner. Does anyone really believe that the politicians are all good ole buddies when they are in total disagreement with their political opponent and are debating them for the job of being president or other important matters of state?

8th. I hope my retorts have not been too aggressive for you who feel being a pacifist is the only way to live. Obviously I am not a Pacifist at heart. A healthy and happy New Year to everyone, regardless of whether you are a pacifist or not! Ha. A little humor.

9th. And if one makes a serious allegation that he believes the U.S. Government flew the aircraft that struck the Twin Towers by remote control and planted thermite devices to make sure the Towers fell as well as buildings on the complex, one has to expect logical individuals to ridicule such a statement. I have read the article online that you posted. I mentioned this too several of my associates and they had similiar responses as the one I posted about this subject. I am sorry if this sounds like redicule, but come on now! I do not think the Bush Administration, as crazy as they were, needed to kill 3,000 people to start a war against the people of Afghanistan.

10th. If I comment in the future on this Blog, I will try to be what many of you have called a civil attitude towards those who seem to be of a different mind set...or if they don't seem to have much of a mind at all! But unfortunately for me, as many of you have implied, I could not become a Pacifist no matter how hard I might try!

Antidepressants cause people to murder people?? I don't think so. (I just went back over this thread and can't even find what I was replying to! But I know it was there!!)
Have you heard the saying that goes, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." ???? I memorized this not too long ago... even with my 71 year-old mind.... because it's so important. And in just such occasions as this.
For those who don't know (and everyone should) "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." is a fallacy, a fallacious way of thinking. It means "After this, because of this." In this case, your article is saying that AFTER the murderers took tri-cyclic anti-depressants, they murdered people. THEREfore, they murdered people BECAUSE they took anti-depressants!! NOT!!!
I started taking Prozac in the late 1980s and it helped me become functional. I had been depressed since childhood. I still take them—different kind, but my brain was so affected by childhood experiences that it was not save-able by therapy alone. I have NEVER EVER have come close to considering killing someone!! OMG no!! Recently I took revenge on someone who had hurt my feelings. FIRST time in my LIFE I ever deliberately took revenge! And do you know what I did? I had an interaction with her that made her angry and uncomfortable! Boy, did I feel good! Now, I'm not saying that any kind of revenge is spiritual—I'm saying that antidepressants have not had the effect on me of causing me to consider to committing murder. Me and thousands, even millions of other people who take antidepressants to help us function!!! No murder for us!!
The "causes" of human behavior are subtle and complex. Everyone needs to realize that. In this case, we have an American culture, that for numerous reasons, has been changing, and for some people, it is getting worse. One might say that it has lost its way. More accurately, one might say that it never has had a "way" that works for everyone. IMHO, humans have many more generations of evolution to go through before we will become more capable of taking sufficiently good care of ourselves.
In the cases of mass murder, we have people born into our flopping-around not-knowing-what-to-do culture. Many millions of people feel unhappy. Antidepressants were invented to help those people. And the mass murderers amongst us are unhappy people who have also been prescribed antidepressants. That's the connection between antidepressant medication and mass murder. And that's all. (and in looking over this thread, I saw someone saying that they believe that the pharmaceutical companies "push" their drugs on people. Well, maybe so, but I know how glad *I* am that I can take them.)
Let's look toward keeping guns out of the hands of people in general. Yes, OK, a gun in the homes of those who have demonstrated they are stable. A hunting rifle for the hunters. But make them a whole lot harder to get than a driver's license, for Heaven's sake. And let's forget this antidepressant theory as a link to what causes mass murder. It's overly simplistic to the point that it is misleading and innaccurate. This is not where our attention needs to be.

Wendalore (innocent antidepressant taker)

Thanks Mark. Your points are certainly well said, and I couldn't agree with them more. I'm simply stating that I don't hold the drug industries personally responsible for these shootings.

I agree, the medications distributed to kids today is an abhorrent travesty. The role of the pharmacological industry is prominent in this travesty; but, it is the role of the school staff and the children's parents that need to be at the forefront.

Don't think I'm trying to defend the pharmaceutical industry. I know they are allowing their bottom line to interfere with their common sense and public responsibility. They do society and people a great service when they treat patients who are in legitimate need of treatment; and, they do themselves and everyone else a great disservice when they market there products to healthy people to sedate them for easier social harmony.

However, they don't hold a gun to people's heads. More often than not it is the patient that requests these drugs. In fact, they demand them. In the end, they are the ones with the executive decision to put the thing in their body. There really is no one else to blame.

Should the Government exercise greater restriction of the pharmaceutical industry. Well, Mark, you and I both know the answer to that question is yes!

And, I still stand by my original point, the solution to these shootings is reinstating of tax payer funded Mental Institutions defunded by the Reagan administration.

They had a bad rap because many patients were commited in them for life. However, better to spend ones life in a hospital seeking a cure to a dangerous mental condition than in a jail cell after taking several innocent lives.

Thanks for the response! Happy New Year! Marc

⛄

Ken #13

Hi Ken, thanks for all the insightful commentary, I've enjoyed it quite a bit. On the matter of pharmaceutical industry conspiracy theories I must agree with you about the drugs themselves not causing the problem. Nor do I believe the pharmaceutical industry is intentionally turning patients into psychopathic homicidal Zombies. However, I must emphasis what you said about monitoring these patients more closely as indeed hitting the nail on the head as to the cause of this problem. Monitoring closely is also the solution to this problem.

If you look carefully at the history of these 'shootings' you will see them practically disappear in frequency just before the great Ronald Reagan discontinued funding of Mental Institutions. People with severe mental disorders used to have a facility that would administer experimental medications under round the clock close supervision of a trained professional staff. Only when the staff was convinced that the medication worked without 'unintended consequences' would the patient be released. Also, the staff was held accountable for the patient even after being released. They assigned social workers who continued to monitor the progress of the patients at home, make sure they took their medications, interviewed family members, etc. Without this observation, writing prescriptions that change mental chemistry to people who already have an abnormal mental chemistry is Russian Roulette and pure insanity.

If there is any true conspiracy in the prescription drug/FDA relationship, it involves the discontinuation of funding of Mental Institutions and their staff members and shifting all the finances solely to the pharmaceutical industry; and then, switching the blame of the obvious 'unintentional consequences' to Gun Control, Government Conspiracies, Parents, Violence in the Movies and Video Games, and basically anything other than the Government being responsible and monitoring the administration of these medicines the way that has proven to be historically effective. The pharmaceutical industry has no say because they are getting rich. They don't feel responsible for these incidents; and, in fact, they are not. The Government is!

Ken, alcohol has been around longer than you or I. I admit that it does contribute to violence and unnecessary loss of life. It's also the most popular medicine used to treat depression! Yet I know of no successful serial killer who when drunk managed to operate several heavy automatic weapons and hit moving targets. The bottom line is alcohol didn't play a role in any of these cases and probably never will; unless, the killer is driving a car.

The obvious solution, bring back Mental Institutions and give American family's a resource for treatment of their afflicted members. And, yes, that's fully tax payer funded institutions at that. Family's should never have to sacrifice their savings to treat a member with a mental disability. That would only discourage the seeking of treatment and further contribute to the problem; in effect, putting us all at risk.

Thank You! Happy New Year! Be safe and healthy!

Ravi Batra in his book "Greenspans' Fraud" points out the growth rate of the GDP during the Reagan years (decade) dropped by about 30%. He summarizes this in a table on pg 174 in my edition.

I am sure I do not fully comprehend Lincoln's concept of no debt. Although I am mired in ignorance, I would like to make a couple of observations. Lincoln's idea would probably work if Lincoln were running the country. However, the issuing of money without restrictions sounds a lot like the Weimer (sp?) Republic in Germany. The result was a high rate of inflation.

Don't forget another weapon we need to build a strong economy is the vigorous enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Of course, all this discussion is irrelevant if can't stop the buying of politicians (lawmakers).

Sorry, ken ware, you haven't indicated what state you're in. I can only narrow it down to VT, MA, CT, DE, MD, WV, IL, AR, WA, OR, CA, and HI before including "a state most people like to take jabs at". With that, I'll guess either West Virginia or Arkansas. In fact, I'll say Arkansas, because WV probably has too few wealthy people to form an exodus.