I’m not sure what your point is.
I never made any unilateral statements that ALL people in this generation are pathetic.
And I never said ‘talking to someone’ is automatically a sign of weakness.
I DID say that I think we see a larger percentage of ‘pathetic’ people in this generation than those previous.
And I DID say that we are frivelous of when we need to see a psychologist, and/or take psychological medication.
So I wasn’t suggesting that you, who has stress from real traumas, were somehow weak for seeking psychological counsel.
It’s the people who I see, every day, who have no rational thought behind any of their actions, who react in a knee-jerk emotional reaction to their societal programming, who can’t face any problems on their own, who can’t take any responsibility for their own actions that I have a problem with.
**
Man, all these people worried about violence–I want to just kill every single one of them with my bare hands! :rolleyes:
You clearly know nothing about psychiatry or psychiatric medications. Tell me this, though–if medications or counseling help someone feel better and live a happier, more productive life, why on Earth shouldn’t they get them?
**
Yes, it’s a sad truth that we tend to have more emotional connection to one another than we did way back when. Oh, for the days when a man could beat his wife or a white man could call a black man a nigger without worrying about how they felt!
It may be a side effect of that same emotional connection that we feel a loss when great tragedy happens even when we ourselves are not affected. I have a problem calling this a bad thing, though.
I agree that it’s silly. Hell, I’m getting on a plane to Italy on Thursday, despite State Dept. warnings of possible terrorist activity in Italy in November. Still, I understand why people might feel this way, and why people who feel this way might need some help.
**
I can see how someone who got his impression of psychiatry from bad movies and television shows combined with media-friendly pop and fringe psych might have that opinion. In the real world, what you describe is perfectly ridiculous.
Possibly. Maybe we’ve finally created an atmosphere in which people can admit to themselves that they’re not happy, and that they don’t have to suffer in silence.
There’s also a very good reason why we’re diagnosing more depression and giving out more medications–because it works. Before Prozac, the antidepressants were iffy at best and had side effects and possible interactions that made them almost worthless. Now, with the better medications, we can raise our threshhold of “how depressed someone has to be”, you might say, before we give them medication. And I ask again–if it helps them, why shouldn’t they take it?
Which is more personally responsible?
a.) Living a miserable life, being a drain on those around you, lacking productivity, but not doing anything about it because you should just be able to “suck it up”, despite the fact that you have been unable to do so so far, or
b.) going to your doctor and saying, “I need help”?
(not to mention c.)saying Hi to Opal )
By the way, you can ask the people on this board who are taking SSRIs (Prozac, Paxil, etc., or in your world, “happy pills”) and who have been left entirely unable to have an orgasm, and who have to put up with crap almost daily from the “suck it up” crowd, if they are taking the “easy way out”.
**
There are a lot of big words in that sentence, but I don’t see what it has to do with the issue at hand. I know that lawyer shows and hail-Mary defense arguments have given you the impression that psychiatry attempts to justify criminal acts, but it does not. It may well try to explain criminal acts, but it does not justify them.
When the germ theory of disease was first postulated, there were some doctors who found it so ridiculous that they steadfastly and purposely refused to wash their hands. My belief is that psychiatry is poised on the edge of similar breakthroughs, and that SSRIs are the first step in that direction. I can only hope that those who believe no problem is insurmountable and that everyone could be perfectly happy if they just tried hard enough will not stand in the way of those of us who want to help people live better lives.
You’re pigeonholing me. I’m not even close to an outwardly “macho” type.
**
Since that’s more of an insult to me than an actual explanation of your specific case, I assume you don’t want me to comment on it.
**
Nice. But you assume too much. I know quite a few people with a similar mindset and distaste/hatred towards the things I mentioned.
To say that our views are unsustainable in our current form is silly. I simply have distaste for people irrational in the manner that I pointed out. Assumably you’re pigeonholing me, and ascribing to me attributes that I don’t have, and telling me THOSE are unsustainable.
**
I’m not about to pull a cite on that, but it does seem to me that such nonsense is often used in both criminal trials, and elsewhere. You don’t have to accept responsibility for your actions, you poor, poor guy. They came from your abandonment issues from when daddy went away on business for a week.
**
Right. Obvious hyperbole. But people do indeed go to shrinks (does it make me a macho idiot to use that term? yay.) for silly reasons. Whether they want attention, or they simply can’t handle even the simplest things on their own, they do. I don’t have a cite available, but people with antidepressant perscriptions is ridiculous.
I even experienced that when I went to shrinks myself. “What? You have a problem of some sort? Let me get my perscription pad…”
And some people are more than willing to accept it.
**
I can understand, I suppose. That doesn’t mean I don’t look down on such people. Thousands of people died today from starvation, drunk drivers, crimes, and what have you. I don’t see people grieving for these things… and so one, high profile event shouldn’t be really any different. (Assuming you don’t know anyone personally in either case.) If you have to see a shrink because of 9/11, or you’re afraid to leave your house, and you didn’t know anyone that actually died, then you most certainly have a problem.
SenorBeef: You see these people “every day” who have outraged you so. Why don’t you provide some actual examples, rather than the ridiculous straw men you built in your first post?
I was happily reading along until I came to your post and figured I was challenged. Figures! In my background I have dealt with more deaths personally than you’ll ever experience because of the type of career I chose and later, with more wackos than you’ll ever meet because of the same thing. I’ve been up to my elbows in human blood and observed first hand the really nasty things people do to each other for really stupid reasons.
I’m known in certain circles of the Congress because of my efforts to get things made better for the disabled and I’ve worked in halfway houses trying to get the down and out to their feet. I was drafted for Vietnam and went, but washed out as 4-F because of my blood chemistry, but the key word is I went – when thousands were running like hell for the Canadian border. I’ve been a Scout Master, active in social programs and a donator to charities. I’ve also been active in locating and dispersing food for the poor.
Very good. May we give you an award now? So, you are physically stronger than I. While you rattled through the brush I was working with surgeons and when you were seeking suicides I was talking to them on the phone.
Are we not both such Amazing Beneficial Human Beings? Should we not give Ourselves a Great Pat On The BACK because we care more than anyone else? Shall we compare war stories? Shall we see which ones are more bloodier or more heroic than the others?
Either way, it has nothing to do with the current topic.
The current topic basically is asking if we have it so damn good here in the States that the average person is no longer as tough nor war ready as people were 50 years ago.
Seeing a shrink is NOT a sign of weakness. I spent several years working in the psychiatric field and a chunk of them was spent working to dispel the awful image of mental illness that the public had due to movies like ‘The Snake Pit’ and the love of Hollywood to produce horror shows taking place in dim, dark, gruesome and hideous mental institutions of surrealistic quality. Plus, the average person figured that any emotional problem should be ‘toughed’ out because unless you showed a wound, a lesion, ran a high fever or popped out in a rash, you were not really sick. Seeing a shrink was for failures and ‘wussies’. Mentally ill people were to be locked away behind high walls because you could never trust them. (Psycho did not help this image at all.)
We won. As simple as that. But, like hypochondriacs, there is no need to run to the shrink for every little, passing bad feeling. There is no need to CONVINCE people that if they feel bad about several thousand strangers getting killed that they need to run to their psychiatrist and discuss it for about $1000 worth of time. Nor do they really need to be put on pills and tranquilizers because they are angry, depressed or feel bad because of it.
Some, sure, but not the majority. Mainly, those directly affected by the disaster need the most psychiatric and drug help. I mean, in schools thousands of miles away, kids who have no real understanding of the disaster are being forced to make and send letters of sympathy, banners of compassion, and so on. They are being taught to grieve! Sending help is one thing, but to take a class of 30 happy kids, then tell them that they should be sad, should be upset, should be doing something about what happened and these kids don’t know why, because nothing happened directly to them, is confusing for them.
Read my section about President Kennedy again.
People today are far too used to having the best of things so when a disaster hits, they first call their stock brokers to dump stocks and start a downward spiral, then they call the shrink and run screaming to him or her to get pills to ease the nightmare and instead of trying to adapt to what has happened and stand tall and strong, they whimper and cry and slide under the $200 comforter on their $1000 sleep-eze bed in their $400,000 house with the $30,000 SUV parked in the drive way and their cellular phones on the beside tables.
By now, we will have folks wondering if going into Afghanistan was a good idea, wondering if we should have just ignored it all to keep the peace while others are waiting to see if the stocks are affected so they can dump and run before anyone else dumps and runs and a few are figuring that we deserved what we got.
Forty Years ago, the average person would have girded his loins, buckled down, grabbed his gun and demanded blood for blood, outraged that someone attacked America, especially some toothless towel head from a third rate nation where they wipe their asses with bare hands and sand and would Not have run instantly to the stock market. He/she would have demanded violent action and kicked the crap out of any nation in their way.
America would have gone onto war footing instantly.
We’re still not on it now, with business as usual and promoters already making money off of the blood and bones still in the wreckage!! Already people are voicing opinions that maybe we should stop the war and just talk and are putting up with protest groups. Almost 50 years ago, if you protested the war, someone would happily beat you into a pulp. America was under siege back then, and we are now but now, people are worried about paying more for their morning Latte, having the price of gas go up for their $50,000 SUV and their $40,000 speed boat, wondering if their favorite restaurant will still be able to get those darling little Middle Eastern spices for their dinner and pissed off because their middle eastern stocks have taken a dump.
To them, the current war is too distant and too vague to be real.
In WW2, nearly every family had a member in the war and that made it very real. The majority was for the USA and the Allies and real damn concerned about what was going on over there.
On my morning news now, on AOL, I find a little clip about the war and lots of articles about what pop singer was sleeping with who, what new cause of cancer has been found, a whole lot about the stock market and clips about the fighting in Israel, what’s new in parenting, are married people happier, this lozenge will help smokers quit, and what big business deal might or might not go down. In the mean time, the TV is riddled with spots telling you that if you need help, to go see a professional. Now and then an article might come up with concerns about the draft starting up and many articles about how certain Muslim nations are starting to bitch about letting us use their lands to launch attacks from, though every one of those nations have, at one time, obtained billions in American aid and food.
Which is more irrational? Someone who sees that a few planes were hijacked and everyone in them dies and feels less safe flying in a plane or someone who wants to punch another person for making a statement? In such a case I see two different people having a knee-jerk emotional reaction to their societal programming.
So you mean that the stocks did not fall for two months after pearl harbor? I think you are participating in a little revisionist history here. As it turns out the great depression from falling stocks happened in the 1930’s. Back then they ran instantly to the stock market when something bad happened. Today they don’t, as they just use their cell phone.
Back then so many people were opposed to the war that a sedition act was signed preventing people from helping the enemy. Back then support for the enemy was so big that they sent people to jail to stop them and they had to make a propaganda machine just to keep too many people from supporting peace.
Actually in WW2 even though every family might have had a member in the war the rest of the family knew almost nothing about it. Now with the advent of television and other things showing the reality of war people are finding it harder to bear. Back then a soldier went over and fought “to be a hero”, the reality of war was glossed over.
Ah…excuse me for entering the debate, but we still have that. Or at least had…we just called it Wildest Bill. That “towel-headed” thing, you might like to know, it’s probably not going to fly. Anyway, my point is, that emotion- anger- isn’t limited to forty years ago. Many many people were angry. They still are. But I’d like to give the people from forty years ago a little more credit, as well as ourselves. That is, we’ve experienced rage, but will hopefully be rational enough to deal with the problem, just as our predecessors did.
All that said, how do one go about loin girding, and is ita guy thing, or can I do it too?
Is that supposed to show some sort of irony or inconsistency I’ve displayed?
Those who are so irrationally reactionary as to fear completely irrational things on a regular basis, in my opinion, would serve society better by being dead. We’re not short on people.
**
If we just start popping happy pills to fuck with our brain chemistry every time we face a problem, what happens when we face REAL adversity? We curl up in a fetal position, cry, and beg for others to help.
**
Give me a break. Are you trying to play some moral card by stating some arbitrary statement that had nothing to do with what I said?
And the “more emotional connection” stuff sounds like bullshit. Where are you getting that from?
**
I hope you cry the next time Bob from nebraska hits his thumb with a hammer.
**
Well, it’s good that you’re not being irrationally reactionary. And I can “understand” why people might feel that way in the same way that I can “understand” why rapists are driven to rape. Doesn’t make it right, and/or not stupid.
**
You may be right. I understand the frustration received when someone who has a misconception on your area of expertise tries to speak on it. I’ll yield to your judgement, mostly.
But I seriously doubt previous generations have seen as much psychobabble come out of criminal apologists lately.
**
Eh, there may be some validity to that, but I think we’ve taken it way too far.
**
Because they’ll never learn to handle real advertisity of they go crying for happy pills with silly problems.
And if it’s valid to start popping pills at any adversity, why not stick us all on ecstasy? It’s probably a more effective drug than prozac for wiping away life’s silly little adversities.
**
Wow, this is totally arbitrary and shares no relation to any of the points I made.
I’ve never suggested anyone with real mental problems, who were incapable of functioning, should simply “suck it up”. It’s those who run to drugs or psychologists when any little problem pops up, those who’ve never learned to deal with normal adversity.
**
They are taking the easy way out. I still maintain it. Is the only way to help such people pumping them full of artificial drugs? Of course not. People, surpisingly or not, actually got on with their lives before prozac was invented. If they have side effect problems from the medication, they’ve obviously weighed these things to be worth it.
**
I was on a bit of a rant.
That’s a nice little speech.
If the new medical revolution to solving people’s problems is filling them so full of drugs they don’t remember the problem exists, I’d hardly call it progress.
If I meet some moron in real life who tells me he’s too afraid to fly because terrorists might hijack the plane, and/or rudolph the red nosed reindeer might get stuck in one of the engines, causing a failure, would you like me to have him fill out a form with his name, address, and a short description of his stupidity, so that I can properly produce a citation for you?
I disagree. Obviously.
You’ve never wanted to punch someone after repeatedly saying really dumb things? Never had the urge at all?
Clearly, I didn’t actually punch them. I just had a gut reaction of feeling quite negative towards that person.
Of course, if you want to say it’s irrational to be irritated at people making outrageously stupid statements, then so be it.
And… unless that very same person swears off driving, and smoking, and, for that matter, and other such things that are astronomically more likely to make them die, then their reaction to the fear-of-the-week is indeed irrational.
The drugs psychiatrists prescribe weren’t developed to “fuck with our brain chemistry”, but rather to *FIX it. Perhaps there are instances of such drugs being prescribed when they shouldn’t, but it’s better than them not being available to those who really need them.
And those who are so irrationally reactionary as to be driven to violence against people who overreact to threats against their safety would serve society better by getting some perspective.
Those who are correctly diagnosed with and treated for depression will be better equipped to handle adversity when it comes along.
Just my own thoughts. (We don’t have to cite our own thoughts here, do we?)
My statement was poorly worded. A better way to put it is that we’re more sensitive now. We are sensitive to that wife and that black man’s feelings. Along with that, we are more sympathetic. I still don’t see it as a bad thing.
As much as it sucks to be Bob, I will not cry over it because I have a sense of scale. I don’t see how this compares to someone being freaked out when 5000 people in your country are killed by terrorists.
Well, you can sit around and imagine violence against them, or you can try to help them. Fortunately, there are people out there who do the latter. Except you don’t like it when they go to someone for help in dealing with it.
Of course not. The stream of psychobabble just keeps on flowing, and the media is always hungry to jump on anything the public will find ridiculous. No one hates it any more than sensible psychiatrists.
As I explain to my patients–don’t think of depression (as defined in the clinical setting) as feeling down. Think of it as an inability to pick onesself up. People who are depressed are called such precisely because they lack the ability to do what you think they should do.
Yes, there are a lot of “soft” diagnoses of depression and prescriptions for SSRIs out there. Like I said before, we can do that now because these drugs are effective and relatively safe. I think it’s better to have people on the drugs who don’t need them (the result of overprescribing) than to have people who need the drugs and aren’t on them (the result of underprescribing).
First of all, it is not valid to start popping pills at any adversity. SSRIs should not be given in reaction to some “adversity”. It is often difficult to differentiate between a normal adjustment response (say, grief) and depression triggered by a stimulus, aside from time. Most doctors will err on the side of giving the drugs (for the reasons above), but that’s a far cry from giving people pills for any adversity.
So yes, MDMA is probably better for wiping away “silly little adversities” than SSRIs, since that’s not what SSRIs are intended to treat.
So do you have a level of “inability to function” at which it’s OK to seek help? Could it be that people are seeking this help so they can learn to deal with normal adversity?
You probably just bought yourself a Pit thread. I’ll defer to those people.
If by “pumping them full” you mean “prescribing”, and by “artificial drugs” you mean “well-researched drugs with demonstrated effectiveness”, then yes, it is often the only way. Of course, counseling should always be provided when appropriate, but for people with moderate to severe depression, counseling without medication is nearly worthless. (It was a study in JAMA, I’ll look it up later.)
People got on with their lives before a lot of things were invented. That doesn’t mean things aren’t better now.
True. But I don’t think they would call it “easy”.
Do you really think that’s what psych drugs do? This is what I call the Backlash of the War on Drugs. People have been given the message for so long that “drugs ur bad, m’kay?” that they lump them all together, so that someone who is taking Prozac is “so full of drugs they don’t remember the problem exists”. (I’ve wanted to start a thread on this topic, and I just might tonight. I’m in the mood.)
That’s not what I wanted a cite for. I want to know some specific examples of these people who are running to get drugs for every single problem that comes up in their lives. You seem to think they’re all over the place, but I don’t recall seeing any in my clinics.
That’s doubtful, since psychologists can’t write prescriptions.
If you went to a psychiatrist and said, “wah, wah, I’m feeling sad”, and went on to describe symptoms consistent with Major Depressive Disorder, then yes, you probably would walk home with a prescription for an SSRI, since the evidence suggests that to be the most effective course of action.
Assumably you’re not refering to me, as I’m not driven to violence.
**
I may be able to grant you that, if you were to acknowledge that the majority of people who medicate themselves in that way don’t have a true form of chemical depression.
I don’t have a cite behind that, of course. Just a gut feeling.
**
Hmm. I still don’t like the assertion that I’m some macho oaf who has no sensitivity towards the problems of others.
**
You’re sort of taking this off topic. Freaked out is alright, if it’s in that “Wow, I never expected it to happen here” sort of way. It’s a dumb stance, of course, but at least it’s not irrational.
It’s these people that need a shrink because a bunch of people 1500 miles away died that irk the hell out of me.
**
Wow, we’re really trying to force the morality card here, aren’t we?
For what it’s worth, I don’t “imagine” violence against them. And I’m more than willing to help friends and such who need someone to talk to - rather than see them fry their brains on some pills.
**
If “they” means people who need help because 5000 strangers died… Well, I merely said they were pathetic. Not necesarily that they shouldn’t get help. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have “stop being a retard!” pills. They’d be more targeted.
**
I’ll take your word on that.
**
I contend that the overperscription rate is probably more numerically substantial than genuine diagnoses of depression.
**
Everyone was amazingly apt to try to shove pills down my throat when I sought professional help. Makes me wonder if the drug companies are paying them comission.
**
Yes. I’m not anti-psychologist. I’m simply against the frivolous use of them. Everyone and their grandma has a therapist.
**
Possibly. I have a hard time sympathizing with people who need professional help to cope with mundane problems.
**
That is what I meant, yes. Semantic differences.
**
Doesn’t mean they are better, either, in some areas.
**
That’s a relative thing, I guess.
**
I speak from experience with this. Zoloft certainly affected me in such a manner. And it had a nasty little effect of not going away after I stopped.
**
I could name 2 or 3 friends, and some close relatives. That’s sort of useless to you… I’m not quite sure what sort of examples you want.
**
Maybe. He’ll simply refer you to the psychiatrist who will interview you for 30 seconds and write up a perscription.
Maybe. I’ve not dealt with too many mental health professionals (is shrink deragatory?), but those that I have were more than anxious to get me on some sort of drug without really conclusive conversations.
I would say better educated. It took about 30 years or so of intensive public education in order to get it this way, including the passing of many laws. With the education came the sympathy.
Granted there will always be a portion of the population who actually can use psychiatric help when something like our current disaster hits, but not the entire general population.
Years ago, it was spare the rod a spoil the child. Naturally, some took it further to beat the hell out of the kid and scar him for life, but not the majority. Now it is use the rod and ruin the kid psychologically and if a parent hits a kid he can go to jail, have to take parenting classes, have to talk to a shrink, and upon returning to the home, be admonished never to hit the child again. That effectively ruins his authority as a parent in the eyes of the child, but this type of sweet and gentle attitude over all dims down or refocuses natural aggression which is needed when a nation goes to war.
There is nothing wrong with spanking a child. Over 60% of the parents still spank their children and the number is increasing. However, listen to the news and one would think you are stopping just short of bloody murder if you spank a child. On Riki Lake one day, she admonished her ‘guests’ that you never, ever hit a child and I disagreed. So do many others, but this type of public influence speaks volumes for the wussification of America.
A hostile nation kills your tourists. Don’t send in troops, talk it over with them for 20 years. A nation takes your tourists and workers hostage. Don’t blow them into oblivion, send them their demanded missiles, guns, fighter jets and bullets so they can wreck more havoc. A nation screws with your fuel, which staggers your economy, indirectly causing the ruin of thousands and the deaths of thousands more citizens. Don’t get tough, cut aide and get the troops ready. Negotiate. Barter, Bargain. Smile and extend the hand of friendship. Send gifts. Understand the cultural differences, the traditions, and their reasons to hate us and continue to let them threaten us. Set up a commercial blockade around a hostile and deadly nation then understand and do nothing while another nation, one of your allies, ignores the blockade and does a thriving business with them. (France.) Continue to do business with them while orally admonishing them for doing said business but do not insult them by doing anything drastic, like cutting business ties or sinking their ships running the lines.
Forty years ago, if you hurt an American overseas, you feared the Might of America because you risked our troops and heavy sanctions. Now, you kill Americans for brownie points among other nations and get away with it while America tries to rationalize, understand the pain of the aggressive nation, seek to learn ‘where it’s coming from,’ establishes a ‘learning dialogue’ and sympathizes with their previous hardships.
In short, America turns the other cheek and invites such nations to belt us again.
America used to be known for its justice among other nations and the fact that it meant what it said and would carry a huge club to use if necessary. Now, any nation can kick us in the balls and get away with it. Look at how the Arabic Nations screwed us over with fuel oil prices in the 70s. Damn near ruined the economy. Russians clamored for our money to keep in the space race, then sell military might to the Towel Heads who are still shaking sand from their robes and stink of cooking over camel dung fires.
Friendly nations which benefited from years of our aide money and tons of our food, who received tons of our medical supplies and technology to work they way out of famine, debt and into the twentieth century now hide terrorists who’s main goal in life is to destroy America.
And, America lets them.
Now, most Muslim nations are pissed off because we are kicking Muslim ass in a Muslim nation, which was happily killing off its own Muslims who did not believe in the Right Muslim way, and they forget the lengths we went through to help them out when they needed us and forget that Muslim terrorists blew up the World Trade Center in the first place. See, it’s OK to kick the US around but not OK when the US kicks back.
And, some Americans sympathize. Others do not want war to interfere with their businesses. Some prefer that ‘it all goes away’ and more are figuring out ways to make a hefty profit off of the deaths of the many in the rubble.
Americans should be so enraged at this act that they should be begging the Congress to authorize nukes and to get our troops in there in mass and kick dirty robed ass! Let them know that being Muslim does not give them the right to rule the world nor to dictate how others should live or believe. The headlines should mainly be full of the war ‘over there,’ not which celebrity is screwing what celebrity and drives should be on to support our boys at war.
There should be programs in schools to write letters to the troops, to send them care packages, to let them know that we, at home, are behind them and that we support them. Enlistment should be up a few notches and more troops should be on their way to Afghanistan to finish this quickly and ready to take on any complaining nation that tries to get in our way. Newspapers should focus less on the inevitable civilian casualties and more on the victories.
The Arabic Nations are unhappy with our action? Tough s**t! They should be glad they are not the focus of our anger. Anyone with half a brain knows you cannot have a war without hitting civilians.
In the 1930s and early 40s, many people did not want to get involved with the war in Europe and there were protests and movements and all sorts of things to keep us out of it, but once Pearl Harbor was hit, those movements vanished as the general public became enraged and we entered the war and went onto war footing so fast that we overwhelmed the Axis powers with troops. The Allies had been wanting us to join them because they knew we would make a difference and we did. America went from protesting one day to sending over battleships and thousands of troops the next.
Today, people are ‘irritated’ when they should be furious. They are more interested in their stocks than in revenge because the disaster did not affect them directly. They are too used to living easy. They don’t work the fields anymore, don’t slaughter their own food anymore, don’t have to buy fresh food anymore daily because we now have refrigeration and they get to watch 100 TV channels, chat on the Internet, don’t have to crank the phone to get it to work, stoke up the wood stove, crank the car nor dicker with the vegetable seller over prices. Nor do they have to walk to the privy out back, shovel coal into the furnace in winter, hang wet clothing outside to dry or even cook to be fed.
They consider themselves paper tigers if they pull off a business deal, run someone out of business, win a lawsuit or have the biggest SUV on the block.
)