The Norwegian Massacre and Denialism

For those afflicted by an inability to relate to normal society and show tactfulness through speech, the era before the Internet was a limiting epoch indeed. Only as recently as twenty years ago, a person who took delight in the suffering of others or who found humor in brutality had few outlets through which he could share the evidence of his derangement. In today's digitized world, those incapable of empathy have at their disposal the means by which to share their viewpoints with a wider audience.

Such sentiments found their way onto the numerous articles posted electronically concerning the worst act of violence to strike Norway since WWII. Utilzing the Internet as a forum through which they can share their sheer ignorance and callousness, anonymous posters incited the ire of the rational through reactions ranging from "kill all the Muslims," to an indictment of Norway's far-from-draconian gun laws.

Culpability was instantly ascribed to the Muslim minority in Norway by a distressingly large cast of characters. While Islamic terrorism is an affront to the civilized world against which we must be vigilant, the fact that so many would exhibit such absolutism in the absence of evidence is distressing. To gainsay the menace of militant Islam would be to exist in a state of denial, yet the willingness to reach a verdict in the court of public opinion with nothing to substantiate it is a frightening reminder that such a mentality is often the catalyst for vigilantism.

Norway is a civilized nation that enjoys a high standard of living owing to several factors: the oil industry, a low level of corruption in government, a strong work ethic, excellent social services and a population generally averse to violence. Acts of aggression are, for the most part, alien to the Norwegians, thus, the catastrophe that struck yesterday was even more cataclysmic to the collective Norwegian psyche.

Returning to the theme of the sociopathic rantings emenating from posters, one is startled to find the reactions of many upon learning that the terrorist was an ethnic Norwegian. The forces of absolutism made themselves evident as numerous individuals refused to accept the feasibility of this man being even a suspect in the slayings. Bewildered that a non-Muslim psychopath would choose acts of violence as a means of redressing what he believed is his nation's ineffectual approach to immigration and multiculturalism, several still clung to their disbelief and mired themselves in an alternate reality.

The irrationality, the generalizations and the sheer incredulity in the face of facts are astounding. That so many refuse to believe that a European could carry out such an atrocity speaks volumes. The first volume should be one concerning historical ignorance, particularly when brutal attacks as recent as ones in the 1970s were carried out by groups such as the IRA, the UDA, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the ETA and several others. The nations of Europe have borne witness to atrocities in the Post-Modern era, yet the myopic belief that only a Muslim could have done something so dastardly is chilling.

The negation of the fact that a non-Muslim is in custody and has been identified as the assailant demonstrates an element of cognitive dissonance on the part of too many. The need to see only "the other" as capable of evil shows a disturbing trend regarding collective thought processes. As stated previously, it is not unreasonable at first for an individual, upon hearing of such an atrocity, to suspect Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates or sympathizers, but that such "certainty" is taken into public forums where they can find kindred spirits is alarming, to say the least.

Film Review: "Obscene" (2007)

Accustomed to the norms in a more permissive society, the consternation caused by Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" presents a near mystery to me. Even in one of the most reactionary of states, I can access this book at my public library without effort. Yet, the world I live in today is vastly different from the one encountered by those of the WWII generation, and it is one member of this generation who helped facilitate the availability of landmark works that have become nearly canonical. The man in question is Barney Rosset, former proprietor of Grove Press, the venue responsible for helping to bring selected works by Beckett, Genet and Lawrence to American readers. The life of this iconoclast who helped revolutionize societal attitudes towards the explicit in literature is celebrated in the documentary "Obscene" by Daniel O'Connor and Neil Ortenberg.

"Obscene" recounts the rise of Rosset, the scion of a privileged Chicago family headed by a Jewish father and Irish mother, to his adolescence at the progressive Francis Parker School, a most likely candidate, along with an upbringing in the Midwest's most cosmpolitan city during the era of Prohibition, for his future stature as a stalwart force against repression. In uniform during the Second World War, we learn of his exposure to the underworlds of India and China where he found himself engaged as a cameraman for the service. While hardly a libertine by the standards of any free thinker of any era, Rosset is nonetheless a man further incensed and bewildered by the self censorship, willful ignorance and philistinism of the society to which he returns. With a grounding in literature provided by a diverse array of institutions, it scarcely surprises the viewer to learn of his move towards disseminating that which is supressed.

"Obscene" devotes the appropriate amount of time towards the case of "Lady Chatterley's Lover, as the trial is only one element of the struggle that helped lift the spectre of literary censorship from us. Included in the panorama of personalities affirming the role of Grove Press in the demolition of such barriers are Amiri Baraka, William S. Burroughs, Ray Manzarek, Jim Carroll and others, either direct or indirect beneficiaries of the struggle undertaken by Rosset and staff.

More striking, however, is the presence of the notorious pornographer Al Goldstein as Rosset's interviewer. Unencumbered by any inhibitions, Goldstein dispenses with tact and facilitates a deeper exploration of Rosset's psyche. Through him, we learn more of the intimate details of the man's life, personal attitudes towards human sexuality and the perception of marriage as an institution after four failed attempts.

O'Connor and Ortenberg have not only delivered to us the study of a man, they have given us a portrait of the inertia by which so many Post-War minds were tramelled. Grove is an institution to which much is owed, not only by those with a particular affinity for the likes of Genet or Burroughs or Lawrence, but by any individual inspired to tear down the limits imposed upon artistic freedom. We owe not only gratitude towards Grove, but also to the two documentarians who have given us a compelling exposé of a less enlightened time challenged by a man of vision.

The Fallacy of "Just get a job with benefits and you'll be fine"

Throughout the impassioned debate on health-insurance reform in the United States, one often is exposed to the reasoning directed at those lacking health insurance, "why don't you just get a job with benefits?" While a solution, of course, the very concept is so rarely placed under scrutiny. If it were to be evaluated thoroughly, more among the most ardent of free-market proponents would probably see how damaging the system of employer-granted benefits has become to our society.

Information on wage freezes in the period after WWII are well documented. In order to lure the most capable during that era, employers sought other attractions, one of them most notably employer-financed health insurance. Such a system has become the standard in the United States. One's health insurance is thus dependent on his employment within the company, whose pool of employees reduces the risk for the insurance company and makes the insurance itself affordable. Such is not the case for those with pre-existing conditions who seek health insurance outside the office pool as outright denials and exhorbitant pricing are standard fare.

Thus, many Americans, particularly those over 40, people with Diabetes, Crohn's Disease, people who were once treated for Cancer but now have a clean bill of health and people with any congenital disorder find themselves beholden to the employer for that which may be unattainable on the private market for the individual. A person with the aforementioned conditions may dream of working part time, working two part-time jobs, being an adjunct at a community college, a freelance writer or translator, tour guide or any other profession outside the standard 9-5, cubicle-bound atmosphere. Yet, such independence is often stymied by the need for that 9-5 office job as the price of health insurance for the afflicted individual can run well over $1,000 per month (recently, a person I know with Crohn's Disease was quoted at $1,300 per month through her regular insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield).

"Job lock" is the term peculiar to the American worker who finds himself unable to segue into something more befitting his talents or interests owing to the health-insurance restraint. An obedient workforce this helps create, people inured to mistreatment knowing that loss of job means loss of affordable insurance thus loss of access to preventative treatment (and please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that they can just go to an emergency room ---ERs are in no way related to preventative medicine).

The prospect of job lock is a reality. I am personally acquainted with individuals fearful of losing the tie that binds them to a profession for which they may be ill suited and read story after story on the Internet from others in the same situation. Not being able to forge one's own career path, be an entrepreneur, work independently and contribute to society through work that gives the individual a feeling of genuine achievement is detrimental to our self perception as a land of opportunity.

I cannot claim to have the answer to what will unite Americans in regards to the solution to our health-insurance situation, but I do know very well that in order for us to continue as a nation of self starters, people satisfied in their work, we need to move beyond this relic from the Post-War Era. The individual who wants to teach at the community college and do freelance translating or be something outside the bourgeois norm is not a drain on society. That individual may put in just as many hours as the executive covered by his employer, but his work does not come with the insurance package offered at a corporation, thus he is at the mercy of insurance companies who are often and, quite accurately, portrayed as predators.

It is no surprise that other rich, capitalist nations who enjoy freedom, such as Australia, have recognized this, thus, the Australian is not bound to unsatisfactory employment should he be the bearer of a pre-existing condition. He is free to work whatever job he wishes. Unfortunately, such self realization is often lost on many Americans who would respond to such a fact with, "well, if you think Australia is so great, go and move there and die under socialism!" Notwithstanding the immense difficulties involved in immigrating to another continent and the fact that that continent is by no means socialist according to the actual definition of the word, it should be remembered that a genuinely patriotic person looks at what is wrong with his society and analyzes ways to rectify the problem.

America is indeed a great nation, ranking number one in a multitude of categories, but this is one area that could conceivably retard our progress as a society. We need to sever the link between employment and insurance. Our employer is not responsible for our car insurance, home insurance or even pet insurance, so the union is incomprehensible.

Severing this link can lead to a multitude of individuals starting their own small businesses, working remotely, working two part-time jobs they love or simply turning their passion into their employment. The time has come to abandon this relic of another age. To have a competitive edge in the free market, we need to stop expecting that employers provide insurance and look for ways to either make private insurance accessible and affordable for those with pre-existing conditions or let the private insurance companies compete with a public option, just the same as private universities, high schools and other entities have their public counterparts.

Let us hope that "job lock" will be an embarassing part of our past and remembered with regret for just how much it limited the very opportunities with which we should associate this nation, that of job freedom and autonomy.

How to obstruct health-insurance/care reform in a few easy steps

While I try not to cater to the paranoid or the those whose idle moments find them contemplating conspiracy after conspiracy, it does feel as though the opponents of health-insurance reform in this nation had written a handbook for use on the general population. One wonders, in a nation where one can lose one's house over health issues, be locked into a job he hates owing to benefits being unaffordable on the private market, see a sizeable amount of his nation's GDP used for a health-care system that provides worse results than those of other developed nations, was a method of indoctrination used and what would it look like?

1. Focus only on Canada and Britain. Get as many anecdotal stories as you can from people who have had bad experiences in these two nations. Completely ignore the fact that all rich, free nations have universal health-care systems. Ignore Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. have universal health care, enjoy a high standard of living and are ranked high in every aspect of human development. Have a backup strategy in case someone starts to bring up the many anecdotal horror stories from the United States where medical mishaps do occur regularly.


2. The average American knows very little about the outside world, therefore it is important to stress that other nations have no freedom, are socialist, take away up to 80% of income in taxes and this is directly correlated with universal health care. Don't worry, he'll never bother looking up the facts in an almanac.

3. Keep repeating that "everyone comes here for health care" as though it were true. No one will bother to ask the actual number of people who come to the United States out of the entire populace of the developed world. Focus on the Shah of Iran back in 1979 or some other celebrity. Just make sure that the real number, which can be found in Forbes' Magazine, is never revealed.

4. Also exaggerate how many Canadians come down to the States for healthcare. Make it seem as though every other Canuck were running to the southern neighbor for life-saving surgery. Never give out the real number of Canadian citizens seeking healthcare in the United States, just keep repeating that "Canadians keep coming here for the health care." No one will bother to look up how many Canadian citizens actually come here.

5. Although we haven't done this yet, we need to be prepared in case someone asks, "how come we never see protests against universal health care in other rich nations and we never see demonstrations calling for its abolition and replacement with American-style healthcare?" What we'll do is get some archival footage of riots and demonstrations and just show that this is the rage engendered within a populace denied basic health care.

6. Keep repeating that the only reason those nations can afford health care is because Uncle Sam, out of pure benevolence, protects them with his military. Never let anyone ask, "protect from whom?" Never let out the facts about Canada's distinguished military history and her current role in Afghanistan, nor dare to bring up France and Britain's arsenal of nuclear weapons; never let anyone insinuate that since the end of the Cold War, those nations are maintaining what is a reasonable military budget, rather than a bloated one. Never let anyone ask if our ground forces are based around the world to protect nations or protect our strategic interests.

7. Keep repeating that all the nations with universal health care are taxed to death. Make sure that everyone believes that all the nations have the exact same tax rates as Germany and Sweden.

8. Hide surveys that show that the overwhelming majority of Canadians, British and others in the developed world would never want their system abolished.

9. Label as "socialist" any nation with UHC. Even though ludicrous in the case of Japan or Switzerland or Australia and several other free-market economies, just keep pressing forth with it. You will have everyone convinced that UHC leads to pure socialism in all cases.

10. Heighten awareness of how America does all the medical research for the world. Never let facts about innovations coming out of Canada, Britain, Israel, France or any other country get in the way. Also, switch subjects if anyone brings up the proportionality of developments to a nation's size/population. Remember, the outside world contributes virutally nothing to research and development. Keep repeating that until it sounds true.

11. Statistics be damned, claim that the UHC systems in all the developed nations of the world are teetering on bankruptcy. If you can find statistics for one nation, apply it towards all, e.g., if France is running a deficit, make it seem as though it applied to every developed nation on Earth and that the problem can never be resolved, except through adoption of the U.S. model!"

12. Make it seem as though every person without health insurance is either a lazy parasite or a reckless spendthrift. Remember, everyone can afford health insurance on the private market if he doesn't get it through his work, he's just spending it all on rims for his Escalade or a new stereo system. There are no working poor people who cling onto jobs with no benefits if it's the only thing they can find. Get the people to believe this.

13. Keep repeating to those without benefits, "just get a job," completely ignoring how many people do work full time and can't get benefits and in this depressed economy, will take anything that puts food on the table.

14. Keep emphasizing how every American already has access to healthcare at all times regardless of economic situation thanks to the Emergency Room. If anyone dares to bring up what an ER has to do with preventative medicine or how it's grossly inefficient to wait until the situation has deteriorated to such a point, change the subject.

15. Make an argument, however sophistic in nature, as to how "general welfare of the people," in no way applies to healthcare.

16. Emphasize that healthcare is a personal matter, not involving anyone else, so it's not your role to care about someone else's healthcare the way you would care about his sexuality, which is your business! Change subjects if someone brings up contagions, epidemics and a decreased workforce due to illness. Remember, it has nothing to do with you.

17. Make it sound as though it were extraordinarily easy to get on Medicaid or any form of state aid. Make it appear that anyone with a pre-existing condition can access it almost instantaneously, no difficulties involved whatsoever.

18. Disguise as much as possible how the average American is already paying for someone else's healthcare thanks to people waiting until the illness becomes critical and requires the intervention of an emergency staff. Treat preventative medicine as though it were a foreign novelty or rather a socialist novelty.

19. Use the argument that before you know it, we'll be paying for a new Mercedes for everyone and first-class air tickets, totally disregarding how healthcare is a necessity and cars, airline tickets, etc. are luxuries.

Remember, you are not, for the most part, dealing with people who are going to go out and buy an almanac or look up World Health Organization statistics at the local library, so it is very easy. The last thing we insurers need is competition from a public option, so these are the tactics we need to keep employing. They have worked so far and will most likely continue to work. Politicians who serve our needs are very easy to get. Just promote them as pro-life and pro-family and they will get voters.

The Vegetarian Chronicles: "so where do you get your protein?"

As a vegetarian I find not only the consumption of meat distasteful, but also my more militant counterparts who evangelize this diet and use tactics for eliciting shame from carnivores. Near fanatical proselytizing only engenders contempt, not conversion. What does tend to influence people to adopt a vegetarian diet are those who are no more vocal about their dietary habits than their choice of detergent and who, beyond a certain age, demonstrate physical well being, a level of healthiness surpassing their peers. The knowledge that they are vegetarians can be obtained through simply dining with such individuals.

Yet, the concept of the healthy vegetarian or vegan is often overshadowed by those who approach the diet in a foolhardy fashion and find themselves stricken with anemia, malnutrition, a generally sickly pallor and other maladies. Because of these cases, the oft-repeated question one receives is, "so where do you get your protein from?" The smart aleck in me wants to respond with, "Food! Where'd you think I got it from, copper wiring and topsoil?"

My foray into veganism began in January of 2010 and, ironically, has enriched my diet far more than when I was merely a vegetarian often relying heavily on dairy products as a source of protein. Once again, it is possible to call oneself a vegetarian if one subsists -for however long the body will allow it -on Ramen noodles, pizza and beer, but such a practice will sway few people, if any. The variety of a vegan diet made itself evident yesterday as I compiled a list of groceries for the weekly run to the supermarket. My list went as follows:

Garbanzo beans
Black beans
Pasta
Tomato Sauce
Potatoes
Brown rice
White rice
Soy meat (veggie burgers, salami, hot dogs, chorizo, etc.)
Lettuce
Vinegar dressing
Vegetable soups
Baked beans
Pinto beans
Hummus
Pita bread
Lentils
Soy sour cream
Soy mayonnaise
Avocados (for making guacamole)
Nachos
Salsa
Coconut milk ice cream bars
Soy milk
Tofu (can be made into a delicious dish using several recipes, particularly from Korean cookbooks)

These are just some of the items that sustain me. In addition to buying my own food, several restaurants are well suited to vegetarians/vegans, e.g., Ethiopian, Middle Eastern, Italian, Indian, and to a certain extent, Korean.

One issue that should be raised is excess reliance on soy. While studies are not definitive, an abundance of soy products has been shown to be a potential hazard to female health, thus moderation is essential.

The vegan diet has been profitable to me in terms of health, but to sustain it, regular consumption of multivitamins plus B-12 vitamins are vital.

Returning to the popularization of the diet, it is important to remember that you have undertaken something by choice. Excess preaching, badgering and attempts to induce guilt will only result in a backlash. As it is a choice, make sure that you reflect in your body itself just how healthy a choice this can be if undertaken in the right way. Most individuals are intrigued by those who appear to age slowly, thus a person whose weight is within normal range may exhibit that, and responsible vegetarianism is often a good way to stave off obesity. The point is to be an example, not a fanatical proselyte. The dietary choice you have made is one that will benefit this Earth and your conduct, if reasonable, may draw converts while its polar opposite may engender mistrust of vegetarians as well as disdain.

Canada and Britain, Britain and Canada: a myopic focus on health-insurance reform

The Canadian flag before 1965

Few matters have polarized the American public as much as health-insurance/care reform, a concept that is a characteristic of every rich, free nation on this Earth. While many arguments have been made against changing the fundamentals of our for-profit system, the logic employed by detractors often fails when put under scrutiny.

A few months back, whilst discussing the respective merits of healthcare in other nations, a co-worker quipped, "have you seen Canada?" The intonation in her voice made it very clear: Canada, thanks to anecdotal stories in our news, has a failed system of delivering health care, any attempt to mimic it would place our country in the same "desperate" state.

If Canada is not being utilized as the template for a failed health-care system, then its mother country of Britain is. Opponents of a public option are quick to point out the deficiencies in both the Canadian and British systems.

Naturally, any institution run by human beings is going to be an inherently flawed system. Yet, the inordinate focus on the "failures" in both Britain and Canada so often come from those who work on the emotions of their listeners rather than their analytical abilities.

Canada has a health-care system run by provincial governments in a nation that houses a population of 30,000,000 whereas the United Kingdom is a nation with 1/5th of the population of the United States. No one mired in reality could possibly think that the systems of either country could be completely overhauled onto a nation with as large and diverse a population as ours, yet that is what is being preached via talk radio: we will have the Canadian or British system imposed upon us and it will fail miserably as it did in those two nations.

To buttress the argument that Canadian and British health care are failures, we are treated to anecdotal stories about mishaps occuring in the hospitals of both nations, waiting lists and general discontent, plus health tourism by Canadians in the United States. While no one can gainsay that there is justifiable discontent with the healthcare systems in both nations as there is in every single nation on Earth, why is it that so few stop to consider the following questions:

1. Exactly how many Canadians come to the U.S. each year for treatment denied them in their home country?

2. What percentage of Canadians surveyed want their current system dismantled and replaced with something akin to our system in America?

3. If you were to ask the non-Canadian telling you how horrid the system up north is, would that same person be able to tell you the name of Canada's Prime Minister, its capital and its population? If not, what makes you think him capable of giving you an intelligent analysis of that country's system?

4. Does Britain allow a private alternative to the NHS? If so, why do you so often hear that all British people are wholly reliant on the NHS and have no private option? Is that not similar to saying that America has only public schools and one may not opt for private instruction?


A careful look at the statistics that are so readily available from reliable sources such as the World Health Organization, almanacs and other resources will yield the answers to questions that should be posed regarding the health care systems in the U.K. and Canada. Yet, despite our vast learning resources, we still have an intellectually lazy component of our population who would rather rely on hearsay, rumors and anecdotes rather than numbers.

What is also alarming is the inordinate focus on these two nations when all the rich, free nations of the Earth have universal health care. While the British and Canadian systems have their own flaws and merits, why so little focus on the systems of Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Malta and others? Once again, we cannot expect to graft onto a nation of 310,000,000 what has worked in a small nation such as Belgium, but the countries in question are still worth studying as a careful analysis could reveal their successes and failures as we figure out how to accommodate our large and diverse populace.

The standard line of "well, look at Canada and Britain!" as a means of discouraging health-insurance reform in the United States is intellectually dishonest. The person in question is usually not inviting you to make an exhaustive analysis of the systems of both countries, he wants to introduce you to what he has heard via anecdotal stories, ones the credulous will easily believe. The fact is that although both nations have serious issues which need to be addressed, there is no mass movement in either nation to dismantle what is considered to be the cornerstone of their civil society. Discontent with the system in both nations means a desire to improve what already exists, not switch over to America's strictly for-profit system. The next time someone brings up how "everyone" comes to America for health care, please ask him to cite his sources, demanding an exact figure as to how many people out of the millions residing in rich nations actually came to the U.S. for treatment. Such information can be found in Forbes, hardly an organ of the radical left.

The fact remains that universal health care is a staple of all civilized societies on this planet from Australia to Denmark to Germany to Japan. All of the industrialized nations have labored hard to install a system that could best accommodate their respective populations and so far, we have not been treated to demonstrations in the streets of Sydney or Tokyo or Tel Aviv calling for its elimination. America is indeed a special case owing to the great size of our nation not only in geographic terms, but also in regards to our populace. It is dismaying to hear so many, particularly those who take pride in American ingenuity, our ability to take something invented elsewhere and make it function at optimal level, cling to the belief that we lack the ability to do better than what we have now.

On Longing for the bygone days

Oft repeated, but seldom analyzed, is the statement that morality is in swift decline in the United States, if not the entire world. The apparent few who have taken issue with this declaration are those who accurately demonstrate just how inhospitable our world of yesteryear was to the marginalized, (i.e., the disabled, commonly referred to in times past as the “lame” or the “crippled,” Black people, or in that age, “coloreds” or “negros,” women with aspirations outside the domestic realm and freethinkers).

The optimist in me wants to believe that those who year for the 1950s, or any era before the advent of the Post-Modern Age are not longing -at least not directly -for a return to the treatment of those outside the dominant power structure, but subscribing to a myopic point of view, a simplified perception of the way things used to be. This myopic view may simply be the one that longs for a popular culture seen as more befitting a general audience. Since the scrapping of the Hollywood Production Code and the advent of Cable television, the celluloid world has taken us further than what audiences expected back in the days when material such as “Baby Doll” or “The Moon is Blue” merited condemnation from the most powerful church on Earth.

Both films treated -however tepidly by today’s standards -the subject of human sexuality, a subject handled euphemistically in that era. Sexuality was the obscene, yet today’s viewer is more likely to watch standard fare of the bygone era and see in the then socially acceptable, the obscene by today’s standards. For the modern viewer, the threats, however veiled in humor, of Ralph Kramden to his wife Alice regarding her imminent voyage to the Moon via his fist or the depiction of Native Americans in the films of John Ford are an exercise in obscenity. Sensitized more to the plight of women and the Indigenous peoples, such representations may strike him as a sad anachronism, a vestige of a less-enlightened time, not one whose return we should usher in enthusiastically.

Yet, it cannot be denied that much of today’s popular culture is a parade of vulgarity, whether it be the continual coverage of the antics of Hollywood luminaries, the easier access to pornography or the premature sexualization in mass entertainment. What differentiates our era from that bygone age is that the means of spreading information, including entertainment, have increased along with the proliferation of modern technology. What remained mostly underground in the 1950s owed itself not strictly to laws regarding censorship, but also to the difficulties of disseminating such information.

We must be reasonable and accept that although much of our popular culture tests the boundaries of taste, we did not entirely dwell in an age of innocence in the Post-War Era. Those longing for the “good ol’ days” must take into account just how rampant vice was and just how strenuous the efforts made were to conceal it. The drug culture, often associated with the counterculture and believed to have erupted sometime around 1965 cannot, in all honesty, be said to have started with the sudden rise in popularity of hallucinogens. A drug culture of sorts existed for eons before that. For those who lived in the Post-War Era, it is not difficult to be told tales of barbiturate-addled housewives masking their discontent through depressants or businessmen leaning on the three-Martini lunch as a coping measure for existential despair –hardly an example for the children born shortly after the Second World War.

The longing for the bygone era is either a stubborn form of naiveté or an all-out desire to put the marginalized back in their “appropriate places.” It is not the dream of the enlightened, those who seek to move society forward to one that is more just, more efficient and more open. In fact, the only societies that have managed to “go back in time” have been Iran with its 1979 Revolution or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The excess sexualization of our culture is an unfortunate by-product of the movement forward, but to concentrate solely on this byproduct and not the progress we have made as a society since times past is foolhardy. Inertia benefits no one. Those longing for the past are enamored with appearances, and appearances in times past were of paramount importance, especially as a means of disguising widespread discontent among the populace. One can recall before the gay rights’ movements, manifold stories of sham marriages, often resulting in dire pain for both parties; the supposedly “clean” television families enjoyed back in the day was one in which the career woman was an anomaly, to say the least, and the Black character was often an exercise in bufoonery, certainly not a member of a race to be taken seriously; children abused by clergy in no way had the power of redress that their families have today, the science taught in our schools was primordial compared to what we know now. Thus, there is little logic in longing for the past and this makes itself apparent in the fact that so few critical thinkers are desirous of a way back.

A true age of innocence has never been ours, all we have known is the clever concealment of societal scourges, ones we have taken upon ourselves to address maturely at last. Nostalgia, at least the desire to have back those loved ones who are now deceased or a particular aesthetic that brought us much pleasure, is certainly understandable; a re-creation of a bygone era, its morality and all, is an illusory dream, one that would more appropriately be categorized as a nightmare for so many