To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Basically, if you were happy, you were guilty of not worrying appropriately.
NPR ran a story this past week covering the special election for mayor, and the role homelessness has played in dominating the debates and campaigns. The article isn't very good journalism, but here is it for reference: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/6167...ss-is-a-big-issue-in-mayoral-special-election
Many would argue that the city is struggling with bad parenting, or what equates to bad public policy regarding the homeless. What was seen for decades as the most tolerant and accepting city in the nation has by effect become a Mecca for the homeless. Of course, there is the also the contributing factor of San Francisco "enjoying" skyrocketing housing costs, so much so that working class people have been left out of the success story, and welcomed to commute in and out of the city to live far away. No one seems to question the morality of rising home prices -- it's merely a boon to the owners and an inconvenient nightmare for anyone who is a renter or poor.
But worse, the acceptance of the drop-out lifestyle has been a problem all of its own. Even after the city spent billions on accommodating those who flocked to the city to do nothing, it has only served to make the city a growing cesspool of homeless "camps," what would have been called hobo villages before the homelessness movement took on political rights. I was there in the 80's on business, and it was bad enough then that it made a bad impression, so I can only imagine how much worse it must be today.
San Francisco appeared to be idyllic because they had managed to exclude ghettos and slums from their environs by economic barriers, and in so doing, left the very poorest nowhere to be but underfoot, which is where they are now. To make matters worse, they became enshrined in this social philosophic principle that they were somehow virtuous because they were homeless instead of there being some realism added to the mix. In the end, and it appears to be the end, that sort of king's-new-clothes approach to a deadly social ill has left a city beleaguered by its own charity and the abuse it has encouraged. After all, the pigeons just keep coming when feed is thrown out every day indiscriminately, and shit-covered statuary isn't really a park for humans any more at that point.
The mentally ill, the victims of parental and spousal abuse, should be housed on the city's dime, but housed. The rest, let them migrate to the next city that flings open its doors and asks nothing in return. There are many thousands who find that life completely acceptable and in fact choose it. They should be free to do so but the citizens of San Francisco are just as free to vote to stop encouraging the camps in their midst.
It is way too soon for this.

Is suicide a rich societies problem ??
Not sure if poor countries have suicide problems
I would think that poorer countries would have less suicides because, well, since everyone is in the same boat, they wouldn't know how bad off they are. I know suicides are higher in far nieth countries due to lack of sunlight.
I believe you are incorrect in repeating this popular assumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_effects_on_suicide_rates
So did mine. Why are they so obsessed with light box ?
I was VERY surprised about this. The inner turmoil, which NotHardUp1 was able to notice, wasn't anything I was ever able to detect at all. I always saw him as an exuberant guy with an unbridled zest for life, maybe at the worst a hint of moodiness on rare occasions.
Yes, he did that...though Vannie came up with apparently a totally valid alternative answer - I'm not familiar with the guy Vannie mentioned, not at all.
Not mentioned here (I don't think??) was that his show was called PARTS UNKNOWN, and is among the "off-hours" shows that can run on CNN.
Such a good answer. When one is famous, privacy is lost. They can't do something as innocuous as going to the convenience store to buy milk (and yes, some uber-rich people, who have their help/servants do these errands, probably REALLY WISH they could do that in anonymity, and get the fresh air...and, also yes, THEY can run out of milk just as we can).
There are also numerous stories about humble and well-adjusted people who won the Lottery big time (i. e. millions of dollars), and suddenly went off the deep end.
I think that becoming rich SUDDENLY (which did sort of happen with Anthony) is much harder to adjust to, than becoming rich slowly but steadily.
I've said that if suddenly Bill Gates up't-an'-gave me three billion dollars, I'd STILL go to the cinema, go out for walks, eat at the Thai place around the corner, and STAY in the place that I'm in right now...I don't just mean Chicago, but even the unit I currently live in. I can't imagine I'd rethink my friends, not even the homeless guy I know in Miami. (OK, I'd see to it that he didn't stay homeless...) I wouldn't suddenly have a hankering to run around with the golf, jet-setter, snowbirds-with-seven-houses-and-mansions, Michelin Three-Star crowds. Why change friends when you already have wonderful ones?
