grasshopperpurp

I never had panic attacks until the age of about 23. I adopted a dog (a Blackmout Cur) and brought it home for the first time, and it went off like a tornado as soon as it stepped foot in the door. I got it calmed down, and everything was fine. When I went to bed that night, though, the reality of the situation struck me, and I thought I was having a heart attack. The entire night, I hummed 'Rio Grande' by the Great Speckled Bird in my head, because I always found it to be a soothing song, and it just made it worse and worse.

The next few months, I would get panic attacks as soon as my head hit the pillow - nothing to do with the dog at this point. Though, the dog was quite a handful. I'd take it for two hour walks, and after a 5-minute rest, it'd be back to rampaging.

Now, I'll get a panic attack once every few years - still, always in bed. I usually have no idea what sets them off.

Edit: I got my first dog so late, because I'm allergic to dogs, and I was a sick kid. My parents didn't want to exacerbate my allergies. I have dogs do this day, and I just deal with the allergies.

Yes, but you're missing the bigger point.

Law enforcement will abuse the most vulnerable.

I don't like seeing posts like this downvoted, as you seem genuinely curious about the issue, but to each his own, I guess.

dv_dt and existencebox hit it well - cultural more than technical. But, the cultural changes impacted policy. I've posted the following article in the past, but it provides a clear image of the issue - from one of the people who set the wheels in motion.

>But there is a theme that threads through and ties together all the strands: many of the most talented, driven Americans used what makes America great–the First Amendment, due process, financial and legal ingenuity, free markets and free trade, meritocracy, even democracy itself–to chase the American Dream. And they won it, for themselves. Then, in a way unprecedented in history, they were able to consolidate their winnings, outsmart and co-opt the forces that might have reined them in, and pull up the ladder so more could not share in their success or challenge their primacy.

>By continuing to get better at what they do, by knocking away the guardrails limiting their winnings, aggressively engineering changes in the political landscape, and by dint of the often unanticipated consequences of their innovations, they created a nation of moats that protected them from accountability and from the damage their triumphs caused in the larger community. Most of the time, our elected and appointed representatives were no match for these overachievers. As a result of their savvy, their drive and their resources (and a certain degree of privilege, as these strivers may have come from humble circumstances but are mostly white men), America all but abandoned its most ambitious and proudest ideal: the never perfect, always debated and perpetually sought after balance between the energizing inequality of achievement in a competitive economy and the community-binding equality promised by democracy. In a battle that began a half-century ago, the achievers won.

http://time.com/5280446/baby-boomer-generation-america-steve...

My pleasure! Another link from EPI explains it better than I can.

>The Economic Policy Institute’s earlier paper, Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge, presented a thorough analysis of income and wage trends, documented rising wage inequality, and provided strong evidence that wage stagnation is largely the result of policy choices that boosted the bargaining power of those with the most wealth and power (Bivens et al. 2014). As we argued, better policy choices, made with low- and moderate-wage earners in mind, can lead to more widespread wage growth and strengthen and expand the middle class.

https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-d...

>The gap between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation has increased dramatically since 1973

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Sorry, I could have been more clear, and kthejoker explained it better (I think). If you use the primary definition, the question makes sense. If you use definitions like 'nonexistent,' the question doesn't make sense. The question basically asks you to infer that it means only existing in your imagination. It's too ambiguous for my taste - for no good reason.

I didn't downvote any of your comments, but I didn't understand your gripe until this post, and I agree with you that the question is not worded well. Imaginary's primary definition is only existing in your imagination, so it's technically correct on one level, but if you look at synonyms for imaginary, and the way that people commonly use it, you get words like nonexistent, made-up, fictional, unreal, etc..

>How many here would give up their leased 2018 BMW for a used Toyota Yaris?

If someone gave me a BMW, assuming it wasn't a close friend or someone I had to worry about offending, I would sell it and continue using my old car.

This is an excellent post, and I agree. It's important to remember, though, that the majority will move with the wind, a small group will be virtuous (almost) no matter what, and a small group will be terrible no matter what. If the system rewards the terrible, the majority will sway that way, and vice versa.

So, while you're right, the brainwashing is largely voluntary, and people seem to even enjoy it in the short term, it's up to the "adults" to set a sustainable structure - to not succumb to greed and petty wants. With regard to politics and business, I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'Where are the adults?'

My situation is similar to yours. My job is fine but only fulfilling in short bursts, where I get to alleviate pain for people. The rest is pure shit. But, my life is pretty great. This morning, I saw four wood storks overlooking a canal in a warehouse district that most would consider an eyesore. It was beautiful.

> if you're not happy with life, and you feel like you aren't moving closer to your goals and dreams

I like many aspects of this post, but I find your opening problematic, because you can be perfectly happy without moving closer to your goals and dreams. In fact, you don't need dreams or goals to be happy, and they're actually the source of unhappiness for many people.

It reminds me of anecdote from Allen Watts about westerners traveling to see Buddhist monks in the search for enlightenment. When the monks would offer simple solutions (you just need to change your perspective and understand what's what), the westerners wouldn't believe it, so the monks would construct arduous tasks so that the westerners felt worthy of enlightenment.

But, to the meat of your post, it's a good point. There's no sense in being miserable. If you are, try something else. If you're still miserable, try something else, etc., etc.. Of course, this is easier when you have resources, and people with mental-health issues should include treatment in their 'something else.'

Yes and no. Maybe a better way of phrasing would be, their effort will never be appropriately compensated.

The problem is that much of the economy is pure bullshit, and it takes brainwashing to make the thing run/make people want stuff that is really of no value. So, there are very few jobs that provide real value - other than keeping the hamster wheel moving.

Appears you and MJ are right (graphs start on page 24).

https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2017/CES-WP-17-54.pdf

Companionship or fellowship would be the primary opposites. Popular people don't necessarily have these, and they can still be lonely.

I was very popular in high school, and I have far, far fewer friends today, but I'm less lonely because of the level of my friendships - to use my self as an example.

Many reasons for this, and many good ones have already been noted, but I haven't seen anyone mention time yet. Americans work a lot. If you don't make friends at work, or you don't maintain friendships from high school or college, you're working on limited time and energy - as are the people you hope to befriend (though you don't know who they are yet). If you have a family, it's even harder.

I don't have kids, and while I don't have a ton of friends, I'm lucky to have some good, close friends, who I don't (imo) have enough time for and don't get to see enough.

>As I’ve continued to grow older, I’ve now come to realize it wasn’t the travel, eating out, or the things I could buy that helped me to be less stressed, it was the lack of burden of worrying about how I would pay for X, Y, or Z.

Excellent post, and I love this observation. Security is the main thing people need to have a chance at happiness.

Yes, accountability and balance are the main issues. Hoping people will be good doesn't tend to work out well.

>A dozen problems with charter schools

Pretty good summary of the common criticisms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/...

For short messages, I open and close with the person's name. For longer messages, I pepper in the name at points where I feel they may need a reminder that I'm here to help or to emphasize that I care. You're right that if you overdo it, you can create a Stepford-Wives vibe, but if you write the way you speak, it should be pretty easy to avoid.

>where the corporations have more people with stronger incentives working to get around the tax laws than the government has trying to write new ones.

If the penalties were harsh enough, wouldn't it change this dynamic?

>Denmark offers a radically different alternative, as do similar programs in other Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. To be sure, these countries have nationalized health care systems, unlike the public-private model in the U.S. But alternative responses to patient harm have been tried on a smaller scale. Virginia, for example, has a program designed to compensate for severe neurological childbirth injuries that is similar in some ways to the Danish system.

Common to all these programs is a commitment to provide information and compensation to patients regardless of whether negligence is involved. That lowers the bar of entry for patients and doesn’t pit doctors against them, enabling providers to be open about what happened.

This seems like a much better system.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-denmark-dumped-medica...

That part is incorrect; however, the overall message of the post is correct. In a for-profit system, it's the patient's only recourse. Don't like it? Fight against for-profit healthcare.

I somehow missed this. What a jerk.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/john-edwards-in...

No idea why this is being downvoted. Maybe they missed the qualifier?

> . . . at least in a for-profit systems.

I agree, and it brings to mind Luke 16:31:

>“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

Agree. Unless I missed it, I didn't see the author acknowledge the huge leaps in tuition costs. Should be noted that the author is a Libertarian, so his range of solutions will (likely) be limited by that perspective.

Yes, but, formatting is also useful. Most of us have come across a giant block of text, where the writer failed to break it into proper paragraphs. Most people who commit this sin are also poor writers, and that doesn't help, but the aesthetics of words on the page absolutely affect the way the reader experiences the information.

Thanks for sharing this!

Food deserts don't help either.

https://socialwork.tulane.edu/blog/food-deserts-in-america

Perhaps more people are qualifying for government assistance, because they're making less money.

St. Petersburg (FL) used to be like that, but business owners started working with artists, and then more and more businesses did the same.

https://stpetemuraltour.com/photo-wall/