 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Medicine - Lyme Forum » NYT's Brooks Figgers Out the Pervert Agenda... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mort Zuckerman... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To: Durland.fish at (no spam) yale.edu, Aag1 at (no spam) columbia.edu, gary_wormser at (no spam) nymc.edu,
scientificintegrity at (no spam) ostp.gov, pkrugman at (no spam) princeton.edu,
Stanley.fish at (no spam) fiu.edu, emcsweegan at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
SpinLyme at (no spam) yahoogroups.com, kshepard at (no spam) calea.org, fitzmas at (no spam) gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald at (no spam) usdoj.gov, modelt1918 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net,
jdrazen at (no spam) nejm.org, letters at (no spam) courant.com, Jgerberding at (no spam) cdc.gov,
michael.cole at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, conndcj at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, executive-
editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, managing-editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, news-
tips at (no spam) nytimes.com, bizday at (no spam) nytimes.com, foreign at (no spam) nytimes.com,
national at (no spam) nytimes.com, dvbid at (no spam) cdc.gov, brigidcallahan at (no spam) optonline.net,
trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, illinoislyme at (no spam) aol.com, jlender at (no spam) courant.com,
tinajgarcia at (no spam) yahoo.com, jhornberger at (no spam) fff.org, thomas.carson at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, kurtzh at (no spam) washpost.com,
georgewill at (no spam) washpost.com, pj at (no spam) allegorypress.com,
commissioner.dcf at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, bransfield at (no spam) comcast.net,
vtsherr at (no spam) comcast.net, oca at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, freethinker at (no spam) charter.net,
scott.murphy at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, governor.rell at (no spam) po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
Robert.shiller at (no spam) yale.edu, editor at (no spam) greenwich-post.com,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, sedmonds at (no spam) nswbc.org, rrmcgovern at (no spam) aol.com,
frich at (no spam) nytimes.com, dprice at (no spam) stmartin.edu
Cc: francam at (no spam) ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad at (no spam) president.ir,
eugenerobinson at (no spam) washpost.com, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
bmiller at (no spam) newstimes.com, trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, rastro18 at (no spam) aol.com,
billcurryct at (no spam) gmail.com, amcguigan at (no spam) rms-law.com, rjmurzyn at (no spam) aol.com,
paulcraigroberts at (no spam) yahoo.com, sidney_blumenthal at (no spam) yahoo.com,
criminal.division at (no spam) usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
christopher.christie at (no spam) usdoj.gov, richard.Levin at (no spam) yale.edu,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, james.phillips at (no spam) yale.edu, inquire at (no spam) aldf.com,
lyme at (no spam) idsociety.org, meganmcardle at (no spam) theatlantic.com,
bob.drogin at (no spam) latimes.com
Subject: NYT's Brooks Figgers Out the Pervert Agenda
Date: Nov 3, 2009 4:21 AM
ARTICLE BELOW ABOUT THE SCHIZOPHRENIC
PERVERT AMERICAN-SOCIETY-ON-ELECTRONIC MEDIA
You get the impression that Brooks thinks
this is a bad idea- But he needs to check
that out with Yale Psych Department first
or else he will be diagnosed with
"Dangerously Intelligent Unabomber Chemistry"
==============================
This is what happens when children are taught
in college by the Pervert Agenda - Freud -
that you should "GET EVERYTHING YOU
CAN OUT OF SEX!" "GO FOR IT!"
That's ^^^ verbatim. I overheard it
because it was literally and verbatim
*YELLED* at the students at Southern
Corrupticut State University in the
late 1970s-early 1980s presumably by
the Social Worker Whoring Staff:
http://www.actionlyme.org/SOCIAL_WORKER_WHORING_STARTS_IN_COLLEGE.htm
I claim that Whore School is the reason
DCF is so stupid:
http://www.actionlyme.org/RAGAGLIA_GRANDJURY_DETAILS.htm
They'll take your kids away if you
refuse to drug them,
http://www.actionlyme.org/andersonpenisbiter.htm
and give ^^^ them to a penisbiter.
Meanwhile, they themselves - the Whorey-Glories
as I call them - are doped-up, demented Sex-And
Druggies. So extreme is their School of Perversion
that they drug and kidnap each other for date-drug
parties:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/5f43dd543943f3b5/bc5368092a771960?hl=en#bc5368092a771960
"April 7, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn (COURANT). --A former information specialist for the
state
Department of Children and Families was convicted Friday of drugging
and sexually assaulting a co-worker."
SCSU is close to Yale:
http://www.drsusanblock.com/
(^^^ Yale Psych Department. And the boss
of the Psych Department lists as his
specialty, "The Study of the Brain Damage
Caused by Psychotropics:"
http://www.actionlyme.org/BUNNEY_YALE_BRAIN_DAMAGE.htm
Stuff ^^^ ya can't make up.)
And everyone wonders how the country
fell apart and why we're having
these petrodollar / energy wars.
It's "bad" and "mentally disordered"
to be a scientist, though, right?
A scientist is an Abby-Normal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?hpw
I am "abnormal" because I think in
pictures:
http://www.actionlyme.org/TOP_AL_ALL.htm
^^^ It's bad, bad, bad, "irresponsible" parenting
to be a scientist, right?
Right?
It's WRONG and BAD and IRRESPONSIBLE to be
*right* about EVERYTHING, right?
I should be thinking in penises,
instead, right?
http://www.actionlyme.org/PHILLIPS_JE_PERVERT.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/PENIS_MATTERS_101.htm
Here, let me ^^^ help them poor thing
"Men with Small-Penis."  ((
This David Brooks character has been
wrong and dull and late on every topic,
which makes one wonder why we need such
a "pundit." Who needs a pundit who is
chronically a day late and a board short,
unless the intention is to piss people off?
Okay, he did one good thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opinion/17brooks.html
"The most emotionally intense experiences are national ones, so the
public-private distinction was bound to erode. Moreover, the status
system doesn’t really revolve around money. It consists of trying to
prove you are savvier than everybody else, that above all you are
nobody’s patsy."
He ^^^ clarified the Goat Culture.
'The Head-Butters' Culture.
He went home to Israel and found out
it was unpleasant.
Huh.
Now he finds that the Pervert Society is
also unpleasant and wrong and not working
out so well, huh?
Give him a Nobel *and* a Pulitzer.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
===================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03brooks.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print
November 3, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Cellphones, Texts and Lovers
By DAVID BROOKS
Since April 2007, New York magazine has posted online sex diaries.
People send in personal accounts of their nighttime quests and
conquests. Some of the diaries are unusual and sad. There’s a laid-off
banker who drinks herself into oblivion and wakes up in the beds of
unfamiliar men. There’s an African-American securities trader who
flies around the country on weekends to meet with couples seeking
interracial sex. (He meets one Midwestern couple at a T.G.I.
Friday’s.)
But the most interesting part of the diaries concerns the way
cellphones have influenced courtship. On nights when they are out, the
diarists are often texting multiple possible partners in search of the
best arrangement.
As the journalist Wesley Yang notes in a very intelligent analysis in
the magazine, the diarists “use their cellphones to disaggregate,
slice up, and repackage their emotional and physical needs, servicing
each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead.”
Often the diarists will be on the verge of spending the evening with
one partner, when a text arrives from another with a potentially
better offer. To guard against not being chosen at all, Yang writes,
“everyone is on somebody’s back-burner, and everybody has a back-
burner of their own, which they maintain with open-ended texts.”
The atmosphere is fluid, like an eBay auction. This leads to a series
of marketing strategies. You don’t want to appear too enthusiastic.
You want to invent detached nicknames for partners. “Make plans to
spend day with the One Who Cries,” a paralegal, 26, from the East
Village writes. You want to appear bulletproof as you move confidently
through the transactions. “I have a Stage Five Clinger on my hands,” a
TV producer writes. “He asks me to hang out again this coming Sunday.
I do not respond.”
People who send in sex diaries to a magazine are not representative of
average Americans. But the interplay between technology and hook-ups
will be familiar to a wide swath of young Americans. It illustrates an
interesting roadblock in the country’s social evolution.
Once upon a time — in what we might think of as the “Happy Days” era —
courtship was governed by a set of guardrails. Potential partners
generally met within the context of larger social institutions:
neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and families. There were certain
accepted social scripts. The purpose of these scripts — dating, going
steady, delaying sex — was to guide young people on the path from
short-term desire to long-term commitment.
Over the past few decades, these social scripts became obsolete. They
didn’t fit the post-feminist era. So the search was on for more
enlightened courtship rules. You would expect a dynamic society to
come up with appropriate scripts. But technology has made this
extremely difficult. Etiquette is all about obstacles and restraint.
But technology, especially cellphone and texting technology, dissolves
obstacles. Suitors now contact each other in an instantaneous,
frictionless sphere separated from larger social institutions and
commitments.
People are thus thrown back on themselves. They are free agents in a
competitive arena marked by ambiguous relationships. Social life comes
to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and
demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners.
The opportunity to contact many people at once seems to encourage
compartmentalization, as people try to establish different kinds of
romantic attachments with different people at the same time.
It seems to encourage an attitude of contingency. If you have several
options perpetually before you, and if technology makes it easier to
jump from one option to another, you will naturally adopt the
mentality of a comparison shopper.
It also seems to encourage an atmosphere of general disenchantment.
Across the centuries the moral systems from medieval chivalry to Bruce
Springsteen love anthems have worked the same basic way. They take
immediate selfish interests and enmesh them within transcendent,
spiritual meanings. Love becomes a holy cause, an act of self-
sacrifice and selfless commitment.
But texting and the utilitarian mind-set are naturally corrosive
toward poetry and imagination. A coat of ironic detachment is required
for anyone who hopes to withstand the brutal feedback of the
marketplace. In today’s world, the choice of a Prius can be a more
sanctified act that the choice of an erotic partner.
This does not mean that young people today are worse or shallower than
young people in the past. It does mean they get less help. People once
lived within a pattern of being, which educated the emotions, guided
the temporary toward the permanent and linked everyday urges to higher
things. The accumulated wisdom of the community steered couples as
they tried to earn each other’s commitment.
Today there are fewer norms that guide in that way. Today’s technology
seems to threaten the sort of recurring and stable reciprocity that is
the building block of trust.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:10 pm
|
|