I have a (funny? interesting? boring?) anecdote related to this. I like the local talk show in the afternoon because the host is well-tuned to our local issues and he is one of the most even-handed people around. Always makes for a good conversation.

Anyway, it's a generally conservative station so most of the callers lean that direction. So a lady called in Monday afternoon with a gripe about an icy intersection. Typical local stuff from a small area. She said that several cars had slid and bumped the curb, and one even hit hard enough that it damaged the suspension or steering and needed a tow. So she called the police to let them know that it was a hazardous spot and asked that they let the city know. She said this was about 4 pm. Nothing happened all evening with regard to the city coming to lay down some ice melt or sand, so she called her city board member and complained to him. He responded with, "What am I supposed to do about it at this time of night?"

Apparently that got her upset. When she called the show she brought up the old standby of 'think of the children!' and all that crap, blah blah blah. And I'm thinking to myself, "Lady, you identified the problem, you've deemed it hazardous, you know what the solution is (spread some sand or ice melter), you see the city isn't able to get it done for one reason or another, and yet your only action is to gripe to the city about it? How about, if it's such an imminent hazard, you put on some boots, grab your little bag of ice melter, and take 3 minutes to spread some on the road yourself? Or ask your husband or neighbor to take care of it."

And I decided that (I think this ties in loosely with your point above) while we rant about government being slow to respond or whatever the problem is, even when the solution to the problem is so glaringly obvious and simple to implement, we're stuck on the notion of "it's their job so they should do it," to the point that we're becoming mentally helpless to do these things ourselves. I don't think it ever occurred to her to simply take care of the problem herself, even though she likely does the exact same thing to eliminate the exact same problem on her sidewalk, driveway, and front steps. And why would she? We've learned over the years that government is the solution to problems big and small, and there is no other way. "Well, yeah, I could do that, but they are supposed to handle it." That's great, but they're not, so what are you going to do about it? "Call someone else."

The next day she probably went back to bitching about high taxes, gov't spending, loss of freedom, etc.

Pretty much everyone I associate with, honestly. None of them would swap it for government health care I know for certain.

I think given your question there and the statements you make after it you are focusing on a grumpy minority over the relatively placated majority. And I don't think placated is a bad thing. Like I said in my last post and you didn't quote, the media manipulation and fear tactics would not really work if people were that uncomfortable. You paint America as a miserable place filled with unhappy people and I think if that were ANYWHERE near the truth civil unrest would be a LOT higher.

People can be placated when they're generally satisfied. Miserable people not so much.

None of them would swap it for government healthcare as it functions, in say, Sweden or Norway? (As an aside, do you only know healthy, young people with no kids and no health issues?)

And thinking a potential alternative is worse is hardly the same thing as being happy with their costs or coverage of their current care. I bring that up because you said they're "happy" but then only backed it up with "they think the alternative is worse", it's possible both are true, but if you're conflating the two, it's not an endorsement of the current system in the US.

Rome's population was largely placated, for awhile at least, by the coliseum. Most scholars and historians seem to think this was a time when there were serious problems (that indeed led to the downfall of Rome) and the average person fared rather poorly. I don't know if easily placated means people are happy or not, I'd have to dig into some case studies. It's an interesting theory that's worth some research.

America has high patriotism, so people tend to speak well of it, but go ahead and check out the various indexes of the first world. Note that Americans barely crack the top 10 for most of the ratings, including happiness. You see, there's a correlation between happiness and money, though not the kind most people think. The happiest nations on the scales have less variations between people (few to no super rich, but few to no super poor either) and their governments spend a lot of money on each individual (health care, social safety nets, fire protection, food quality assurance, anti-pollution measures, good public transit, etc. - some of which the US does but a lot of our programs are desperately underfunded).

The real problem is actually the expectation of growth, our economy, practically the world economy has come to rely on it and most of what we've been using to sustain is basically not actually sustainable (there literally is only so much energy and so many emerging markets, aka people, the latter number of which will mostly be dictated by other constraints).

You have a good point (the lady had a point too, but not in the same way). The communities that have a lot of participants that are engaged tend to draw even more people like that. This is great, it's what leads to renewed little neighborhoods in some cities and some burbs that are actually nice (where the neighbors know each other and aren't annoying yuppies). Of course this sometimes goes too far with HOAs, but that's a digression:)

The problem is the areas from which engaged citizens flee. One guy posted a story which I'll assume to be true since there's little reason to disbelieve it. He used to live in one of the poorer areas in SoCal, the kind where not everyone spoke English and you ended up with "alternative" neighbors that you find less often in the burbs. The police would often show up to harass people with brown skin, etc. However, for his part, he put out flowers and tried to make the area nicer. People would steal his flowers and generally trash the things he did (and by people, I mean likely a very small minority of the people in the area). He felt largely alone. Now he claimed there been a rather bad example of police overreaction as part of the reason he left, but the rest of it was just his dissatisfaction that he couldn't make the area better, no one would help, despite some of them being genuinely nice people, and whatever he or anyone else did got trashed. So, he had a higher paid professional job, so he went to the burbs. And this borderline neighborhood in SoCal lost a resident that was positively contributing.

So what can we do, if anything, to get the majority of everyone engaged in making their local areas better? I don't know. To me the problem seems as insurmountable as fixing the issues with voting, with medical care, with the economy, or anything else around here. Sometimes a congressman that doesn't have a sure reelection bid will listen to enough people calling his/her office, but if they need money from a super-PAC to get reelected too, I don't know how well even that would work anymore.

<sigh> Me, either. I guess we can each do what we feel is right, and maybe it'll turn contagious. : )

Pretty much everyone I know has a good job and healthcare through it. The only exception would be my best friend, but he's 30 and healthy and doesn't seem to notice. Of everyone I associate with I would say I am the only one who would support socialized healthcare.

Right. And I don't think the average person in America is fairing rather poorly. I think that is a massive exaggeration. You're still painting us with this horrible brush that I don't think is accurate.

In any case I agree our priorities are out of whack and that we are placated, not truly happy. I just think if people are placated by the current model then they must not want a revolution that much. If they did, they would no longer be placated. I hope that makes sense.

You and I are not that far apart really, you just think things are a lot worse a lot more universally than I do.

I drink a glass of scotch to that, maybe it'll make me feel better:)
This is possible, I guess I'm mostly disappointed that I liked it much better overseas, identified with the philosophy and way of life much more and find myself stuck in a place that I don't like, see a lot of other unhappy people not liking, and yet feel poweless to change. Yes, I always have free will, but reality dictates I'd be giving up some things and leaving some responsibilities behind that I'd rather not.

I don't deny that we have very real and pressing problems to solve here. It is your elevation of American problems to near-Apocalyptic levels coupled with your denial or trivialization of European problems which causes me to write you off as near psychotic. Further, unless I've confused you with another, I recall you chastising Americans for arrogance while trumpeting the superiority of Europe in every regard. Your views are so transparent in their hypocrisy that its a wonder cognitive dissonance hasn't destroyed your brain.

Feel free to cry truth as a defense, that America is Evil, that Europe is Heaven on earth, etc. I don't care: Christmas draws near, and I don't feel like spoiling the holiday by engaging with you further. Merry Christmas. May 2012 bring America and Europe, and everyone else for that matter, a bit of hope.

Man I never thought it would get this popular.