The Consumer Society (proposed by Thor Johnson)

A recent article in a global news magazine begins with the following header:
"Capitalism can make a society rich and keep it free. Don't ask it to make you happy as well"

I think this will be a particularly enlightening discussion, considering that we live in the country that invented modern capitalism, yet many of us come from very different socioeconomic environments. Many nations seem to be headed towards the capitalist/consumer model as well, so we have to ask ourselves, is this an unquestionably good thing? Is there a hidden price we pay for becoming rich and free? Standard of living studies are focusing less on GDP and income and more on living conditions of people. Perhaps it is only after becoming rich and free that we can afford the time or the choice to ask this type of questions.

• What are some of the problems facing a consumer society?
• Can we make progress and evolve outside of the capitalist model?
• Are there alternatives to a successful society that do not involve consumerism?
• Are our values distorted because of the need to constantly produce, consume and accumulate wealth in order to keep our economy moving?
• In emerging capitalist economies -some Asian nations come to mind: do people feel they are benefiting from the change?

Discrimination

Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment.

Discrimination, in the most common use of the word, is bad thing -no controversy there. But, what is discrimination? Is it always bad? Is avoiding discrimination a means, or an end in itself? Is it possible to have "good" discrimination such as affirmative action, for example, or is it bad by definition?

A recent thread on the main S.I.C. list revolved around how clubs allegedly practiced by having "ladies free" events. At first I thought that the posting was about discriminating against men, since they did have to pay, while women did not. Upon reading more, I realized that the discrimination was supposedly against women. I personally find this confusing (unless the club was advertising "free ladies", instead of "ladies free"... I'll have to read that again...) but that just goes to show that this is not very clear to many of us.

Here are a few questions. Think about what the answers are for you, and why, and let's exchange opinions at the next discussion meeting.

• Do you think that discrimination has become a non-issue, practiced only by so few individuals as to be basically irrelevant?
• Do you feel discriminated against, today, in this city?
• In your opinion and personal experience, how does US society stand compared to other parts of the world?
• Bring your questions for everyone else to answer.

February:(Organized by Mineko Sterling) Romantic Love

What better way is there to spend the Valentines Day than to analyze romantic love to death so it'll lose its significance?

For this month's discussion, we will meet at Diana's place on Tuesday, February 14th from 6:30pm-9:30pm. Please wear something red, pink, black, or white just for the heck of it. Also, bring something red, pink, black or white to eat. Hearts of all sorts (artichoke, palm, chicken, etc.) are acceptable as well.

This month's burning questions are:"Where did it come from?" "What is it?"
and "Where is it going?" (Feel free to bring some naked women from Tahiti.)

Each comment will be limited to one minute to avoid any show of sentimentality. I'll try to find a talking object to encourage an orderly and intellectual discussion. Please let me know if you have an anatomically correct, heart-shaped object.

Here is an article on love from Journal of Neuroscience
(http://web.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/love_andthe_brain.html)

Electoral Systems (Organized by Tom Cogbill)

• Should everybody be given the right to vote ("the franchise")? How about felons, or people demonstrably ignorant about what they are voting on?
• Primary elections were originally conceived to give members of a particular political party the right to directly elect the candidates who will run in the general election. Until it was ruled unconstitutional in 2003, Wash. state had a "blanket" primary which allowed a voter to select a candidate of either party on a post-by-post basis (as opposed to a slate of candidates). Now we have a "Montana" style" primary: the voter must choose from one of the 3 recognized political parties and can vote only within that block of candidates. Some other states have a "closed" system whereby the voter must declare his/her allegiance to a certain party in order to participate. Do primaries make small-party candidacies unviable? And if their point is for a party to select its candidates for the general election, do you think taxpayers should fund them?
• Lastly, during the Progressive movement at the turn of the 19-20th cc., representative government was seen as being corrupt and not always representing the true will of the people. Several western states (including Washington) developed alternatives allowing for direct voter participation in law-making. As a result, we have the Initiative process and the Referendum, both of which allow voters to vote directly on a proposition. But because not all voters are well educated on the issue at hand, these methods are subject to demagoguery and may produce ill-considered laws. How legitimate do you think these alternative processes are? Should they be more limited and controlled, eliminated altogether? (Most states do without them.)

The US Health Care System; What is Wrong and How Do We Fix It? (Organized by Kelly Pidone)