The general decline in standards today

[Pompidou]

No wonder you're opening a coffee house. How's that going, by the way?

We've been surviving by a combination of luck and creativity. We haven't opened yet - only waiting for our health inspection now. It's been a four year effort, three trying for loans, and one proceeding without them. Myself and another partner - the first one to join me - we've pretty much thrown everything we have into this, to the point we're ruined if this doesn't pan out. The other two were already at that state when they joined.

Our cafe became a worker cooperative sometime in the first year before anyone but me had officially signed on, so we have no employees. Since this is my, our now, way to finally do something good for the world, we want to give good people who might be underemployed or unemployable a job they can be proud of. Since everyone earns equal ownership (we constantly amend our llc filings as to all be members), people who've never had much can say they own their own business. We operate via direct democracy but generally divide the work into separate spheres so nobody has to answer to anyone. Eventually, we might move to a more republic and tiered structure, but this is great right now. Trying to make the best of a "useless" history degree.

So far, we've managed to keep electricity, gas, water, phone, Internet, garbage and the landlord happy by juggling and bargaining, since we've encountered one delay after another. At least we've got the money to start tomorrow if the opportunity arose. My unemployment got shutoff when CT dropped under quota for extra benefits, so I've just spent my last penny. Now it's just wait and pray. Should be opening in a week or two, provided we pass inspection (or get one...). Even if this doesn't work, I'll be proud just for sticking to this for so long and seeing it to the end. I think we'll do okay. We've got nothing to lose anymore, so things can only go up. Saving the unemployed won't happen by itself. We'll take a few with us.

Oh, and my partners all agreed, the color scheme has to be like my Art Fawcett hat. Fine with me. Red and black is sharp.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Yup, I've got quite a few bottles of Pabst Tonic. The stuff must have tasted terrible. I've been collecting breweriana for years and find way more full bottles than empties of the stuff. Old beer bottles are seldom full.

A lot of them started making "medicinal alcohol" during the Evil Prohibition. Sounds like favorite kind of alcohol.

 

[Flicka]

That is pretty much how I feel about the subject. I have been out to lunch that included drinks and nothing ever happened as well.
Being uptight about drinking just depends on how you were raised I suppose. If you saw people drink in social situations and they hardly ever got even slightly drunk then you are more than likely to see drinking as just one of those things that adults do. If you were raised with uptight teetotallers then drinking is a forbidden thing and those people usually end up being drunks because they never saw moderation and when they finally try drinking they have no idea how to handle it. It is one of those European conundrums.

Yes, your upbringing matters for your attitude to drinking. Take my ex, for example. His father, and one cousin were the only two males in his whole family for as far back as we could trace them who were not alcoholics, and if you ask me, his father drank a little too much. I mean, no matter if you believe in alcoholism being socially conditioned or genetic, he had the odds stacked against him.

I've always been good at handling alcohol. I've almost always drunk in moderation, and never thought much about it one way or another. My ex though... You showed him a bottle and he emptied it. The irony was that when we kept equal paces he was wrecked the next day and I was chipper as a singing bird. I can't tell you the number of times I had to make up excuses for him, because he was busy vomiting.

If I remeber correctly, that's pretty much what research shows too. Children in homes where alcohol abundances (not necessarily to the point of alcoholism) are much more likely to have a problem in the future than children to teetotallers.

I ramble. I just wanted to say that in reality, things are slightly more complicated than you make them out to be.

 

[William Stratford]

I suspect that no small proportion of the whole issue (lower standards today, including the amount drunk) is that people have forgotten how to cherish - they just dont care and so just immerse themselves in appetite because there is no reason for them to do other....making consumption, in all of its forms, the totality of their life.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I suspect that no small proportion of the whole issue (lower standards today, including the amount drunk) is that people have forgotten how to cherish - they just dont care and so just immerse themselves in appetite because there is no reason for them to do other....making consumption, in all of its forms, the totality of their life.

I commend your very wise words, sir. There is a very excellent article on Art of Manliness regarding the virtue of temperance which expresses much the same sentiment and which urges temperance as an antidote to this carless excessive consumption mindset which seems so prevalent today.

 

[Noirblack]

Prohibition was nasty business in my opinion. Unfortunately, the prohibitionist spirit never died, and is alive and well today; it was simply out-voted with repeal. I think that sometimes, especially when well meaning people become too sure of controversial moral convictions, we move in directions that have serious consequences that are unintended -- prohibition resulting in widespread disrespect for the law and the entrenchment of organized crime, the Vietnam War resulting in widespread distrust of government and unanticipated loss of life and treasure, the Great Society resulting in three-generation welfare families, and today's war on drugs resulting in big-time multinational crime and more incarcerations per capita in the USA than anywhere else in the world.

Regarding the three-martini lunch: Most people interested in retro things remember William Powell's portrayal of the Thin Man during the Era, which was a little overdone I'm sure. Likewise, the three-martini lunch is only a metaphor for drinking at lunch during the work day by white-collar people, of course, as not many actually had three walloping martinis (just speaking from my own experience -- clearly, I am not a scholar of the subject). Typically, at least where I lived, people would go out in groups in private cars -- literally nobody used public transportation for lunch (too slow) or taxicabs (too inconvenient and unreliable). Really, the end result was that nothing much happened, except that productivity probably went down in the afternoons.

I am not an advocate of drunken driving. On the other hand, I do believe that people were not so uptight about this issue in the Era or in the 1960's, and that the adverse consequences were negligible. People differ -- there is probably no need for Big Brother to jackboot everyone into the same mold -- somebody who has an IQ of 140 and the reflexes of a fighter pilot can probably drink a full bottle of Jack Daniels for lunch and still be a better driver than I am on my best day. So, 0.01, 0.08, whatever -- I don't care, as long as the person drives carefully.

I would never advocate for prohibition of booze. As long as a person is not driving, they can drink as much as they like as often as they like. They can go from a pre-breakfast tipple and continue all day to that final nightcap. Prohibition won't get rid of drinking and driving because it won't get rid of drinking. Even a law that said 0.0% BAC is the legal limit won't get rid of drinking and driving, but it would reduce it.

Intoxicants will always be with us. People, including me, like them. As far as I am concerned, no drug should be illegal. Get drunk, stoned - whatever a person likes. However, I have no problem with regulations on drugs especially where the use of a drug can impact public safety. I don't want that drunk/high/stoned person driving a car in that condition, flying an airplane in that condition or working at the local dynamite factory in that condition.

 

[William Stratford]

I commend your very wise words, sir. There is a very excellent article on Art of Manliness regarding the virtue of temperance which expresses much the same sentiment and which urges temperance as an antidote to this carless excessive consumption mindset which seems so prevalent today.

Er, thankyou, but I think you are being overly generous!

 

[jamespowers]

Yes, your upbringing matters for your attitude to drinking. Take my ex, for example. His father, and one cousin were the only two males in his whole family for as far back as we could trace them who were not alcoholics, and if you ask me, his father drank a little too much. I mean, no matter if you believe in alcoholism being socially conditioned or genetic, he had the odds stacked against him.

I've always been good at handling alcohol. I've almost always drunk in moderation, and never thought much about it one way or another. My ex though... You showed him a bottle and he emptied it. The irony was that when we kept equal paces he was wrecked the next day and I was chipper as a singing bird. I can't tell you the number of times I had to make up excuses for him, because he was busy vomiting.

If I remeber correctly, that's pretty much what research shows too. Children in homes where alcohol abundances (not necessarily to the point of alcoholism) are much more likely to have a problem in the future than children to teetotallers.

I ramble. I just wanted to say that in reality, things are slightly more complicated than you make them out to be.

There is a difference between alcoholic parents and controlled social drinkers. It is known that the children of alcoholic parents are more apt to use alcohol than people whose parents are teetotalers or controlled social drinkers. Studies have shown that even if children of alcohol-dependant parents are adopted by nondrinkers, they are still significantly more likely to grow up to abuse alcohol than biological children of nondrinkers. This suggests a genetic component in the tendency towards substance abuse and dependence. That is a completely different thing. Genetic alcoholism is not subject to contolled social drinking as it is nearly impossible for them.
The studies actually show that the children most likely to grow up and abuse alcohol were the children of alcoholics andteetotalers. The extremes produce the extremes.

 

[Flicka]

There is a difference between alcoholic parents and controlled social drinkers. It is known that the children of alcoholic parents are more apt to use alcohol than people whose parents are teetotalers or controlled social drinkers. Studies have shown that even if children of alcohol-dependant parents are adopted by nondrinkers, they are still significantly more likely to grow up to abuse alcohol than biological children of nondrinkers. This suggests a genetic component in the tendency towards substance abuse and dependence. That is a completely different thing. Genetic alcoholism is not subject to contolled social drinking as it is nearly impossible for them.
The studies actually show that the children most likely to grow up and abuse alcohol were the children of alcoholics andteetotalers. The extremes produce the extremes.

That's not what I've ben taught. I'm quoting a Swedish professor now (professor Sven Andreasson). According to him, there is what he calls a 'genetic vulnerability' but it's a minor factor. The decisive factor is availability of alcohol. Interestingly, the majority of the alcoholics do not have a close relation who is an alcoholic, but have either had an early alcohol debut (regardless of how much their parents drink) and a socially troubled upbringing or have started drinking later in life for a variety of reasons - there is no 'one' explanation for why. You cannot, according to him, find any one 'trait' or personality that accounts for alcoholism. This is in line with what my grandfather, who worked with The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs used to say, and also what my sister who is currently taking a course in substance abuse for her medical degree says they are being taught.

I'd be interested to see the studies you are referring to. Do you have links?

 

[Earl Grey Tea Drinker]

It all depends how you look at it. If you account for women being second to men, and segregation in the 1900's. It would have been a great time to live in. People had more respect for other people. You wouldn't dare touch other people's stuff that didn't belong to you. And children respected their elders. Fast forward to today. It is great women and minorities have the same freedom as anybody else. But, now women want to prove they can do it all next to men, when women physically can't. A lot more children nowadays are being raised in broken homes because of it. Women even are drinking more than men studies have shown. As for race. Not all, but most of it is overblown, because no matter how hard society tries and change. The prison system is still as racist as it ever was. The prisoners even segregate themselves because when you can't trust anybody else. You can only trust your own kind is how prison works.

 

[jamespowers]

That's not what I've ben taught. I'm quoting a Swedish professor now (professor Sven Andreasson). According to him, there is what he calls a 'genetic vulnerability' but it's a minor factor. The decisive factor is availability of alcohol. Interestingly, the majority of the alcoholics do not have a close relation who is an alcoholic, but have either had an early alcohol debut (regardless of how much their parents drink) and a socially troubled upbringing or have started drinking later in life for a variety of reasons - there is no 'one' explanation for why. You cannot, according to him, find any one 'trait' or personality that accounts for alcoholism. This is in line with what my grandfather, who worked with The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs used to say, and also what my sister who is currently taking a course in substance abuse for her medical degree says they are being taught.

I'd be interested to see the studies you are referring to. Do you have links?

I don't have the links but simply:

"In 2008 Ducci and Goldman have published and excellent review of what is known about the genetics of alcohol abuse. Genes which affect alcohol abuse fall into the following categories:
 Genes which predispose people to addictions in general whether the addiction is alcohol or tobacco or some other drug or behavior
 Genes which predispose people specifically towards alcohol abuse - these are genes which cause one to have a low response to the effects of alcohol so that one has to drink a lot to become intoxicated
 Genes which specifically protect one from becoming alcohol addicted--specifically the genes responsible for Asian flush syndrome
 Genes which predispose people towards mental health problems such as Anxiety, Depression, ADHD, or Antisocial Personality Disorder - these disorders make it more likely that one will abuse alcohol.

Ducci and Goldman estimate that the heritability of alcohol problems is around 0.5. in contrast the heritability of Anxiety Disorder is around 0.32 and that of Autism around 0.9. this means that alcohol problems are moderately heritable."



And as to the two extremes causing problems we have:

Teetotalers More Likely To Be Depressed Than Moderate Drinkers
ScienceDaily (Aug. 27, 2009) — When it comes to alcohol consumption and depression, a new study by a team of Norwegian and British researchers shows that heavy drinkers – but also teetotalers -- have higher levels of depression and anxiety than those who drink moderately

The study, "Anxiety and depression among abstainers and low-level alcohol consumers. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study", was published in the most recent issue of Addiction, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Society for the Study of Addiction.
A long-standing mystery
Researchers have long struggled with a counterintuitive psychological mystery: While it’s believable that heavy drinkers might be depressed, study after study shows that people who don’t drink at all also have high levels of depression and anxiety. But why?
One working hypothesis has been that the depression recorded in groups that include teetotalers – people who don’t drink at all -- may be due to the fact that this group can include people who quit drinking because of alcoholism. If abstainers who quit drinking because it was a problem could be excluded from the larger group of non-drinkers, the results might be different.
A team from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, the University of Bergen, a number of Norwegian public health organizations and Kings College, London set out to test this idea. The team used information from a questionnaire in which 38, 390 residents of a county in mid-Norway – fully 41 percent of the county’s population -- described their general physical and mental health, along with typical alcohol use over a two-week period. The questionnaire was a part of a long-term physical and mental health study of virtually all residents of Nord-Trøndelag County, called HUNT, which started in 1984. The questionnaire was conducted during HUNT's second phase, between 1995-1997.
The researchers found that even when they removed people from their study who had quit drinking because of problems with alcohol, the general findings held true: heavy drinkers and non-drinkers were more likely to be anxious and depressed than those who drink moderately. All told, 17.3 per cent of abstainers reported anxiety, while 15.8 per cent reported depression.
The happiest people, in contrast, were those who averaged about two glasses of alcohol per week, where a glass of alcohol represents one bottle of beer, or a glass of wine, or a shot of strong spirits.
Solving the puzzle
The questionnaire also allowed researchers to determine the general health of respondents, which might explain the links between depression and alcohol intake.
“We found on average that there were more people with physical complaints among the non-drinkers than in the other groups”, says Eystein Stordal, an adjunct professor at NTNU’s Department of Neuroscience, and one of the study's authors. “These individuals are more likely to use medicines that mean they shouldn’t drink. But it may also be true that having such an illness increases a person’s tendency to be anxious or depressed.”
Researchers also found that non-drinkers reported having fewer friends than drinkers did, which might explain their increased odds of being depressed.
“We see that this group is less socially well-adjusted than other groups”, Stordal says. “Generally when people are with friends, it is more acceptable in Western societies to drink than not to drink. While the questionnaire recorded non-drinkers’ subjective perception of the situation, a number of other studies also confirm that teetotalers experience some level of social exclusion. ”

 

[rue]

^ Did you get a finger cramp from writing all of that James?

 

[Flicka]

Very interesting. However, those studies don't verify your claims. I never said alcoholism wasn't 'moderately heritable'; I said it wasn't the most important factor. As for the other study it says that teetotallers are more depressed than others - just as alcoholics - not that children of teetotallers more often alcoholics, so I'm not convinced.

Anyway, this thread isn't supposed to be about the causes of alcoholism so sorry for derailing. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

Low modern standards. Anyone?

 

[jamespowers]

Very interesting. However, those studies don't verify your claims. I never said alcoholism wasn't 'moderately heritable'; I said it wasn't the most important factor. As for the other study it says that teetotallers are more depressed than others - just as alcoholics - not that children of teetotallers more often alcoholics, so I'm not convinced.

Anyway, this thread isn't supposed to be about the causes of alcoholism so sorry for derailing. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

Low modern standards. Anyone?

I have several other studies to quote from but I will leave it at the fact that moderate social drinkers are more well adjusted to society and to remaining moderate drinkers---more so than alcoholics or teetotalers.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

You're not a lawyer by any chance, are you, James?

 

[rue]

You're not a lawyer by any chance, are you, James?

No, but he plays one on the FL

 

[DJH]

I wouldn't mind a drink after all that!

 

[Edward]

Low modern standards. Anyone?

Broadcast journalism, particularly in those territories which permit editorialised broadcast journalism.

 

[jamespowers]

You're not a lawyer by any chance, are you, James?

No, I would have to hate myself then.

 

[jamespowers]

Broadcast journalism, particularly in those territories which permit editorialised broadcast journalism.

Interestingly, I was reading an article in Forbes magazine yesterday about how there is quite a bit of polarization going on over there in Europe. The extremes are getting more populated with less left in the middle. I think we have seen this before about 70 years ago and we certainly don't need that kind of outcome once again.:eusa_doh: