First topic (we'll see where this goes): Economics

Some months ago, I was introduced to Ron Paul. To me, he seemed like a breath of fresh air as far as politics go. Everything he said made sense to me. I could sense it was somewhat controversial, but from what I could gather everyone was pretty much tired of the same old game. The primaries kicked into high gear and Dr. Paul was given a virtual blackout by the media. This didn't make much sense to me. I was quite confused. I thought media was supposed to be fair and unbiased. In my pea-brain fair and unbiased means that each candidate gets equal air time. However, I came to learn in the Age of Individualism fair and unbiased means that the candidate(s) that get(s) the most ratings will be given as much air time as possible. This is the brick wall of reality that Ron Paul supporters kept beating their heads against. It's been painful, let me tell you.
So, one of the reasons I've come to learn why Ron Paul wasn't getting air time is because he advocated that maybe we have the wrong view of government. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken the view that it's "the man's" fault. I don't know who "the man" is, but I can tell you that in my family of smokers, boozers, and pleasure seekers, "the man" is not at the forefront of their mind. If my family is to be a microcosm of the rest of society, then people aren't really paying attention to anyone except themselves. It would be really easy to think of my family as an exception to the rule, but that would be denying everything that is true about sociology.
So, if people - at their core - are like my family then we:
(1) Shirk responsibility whenever it is convenient (which is most of the time).
(2) Have a few people that take responsibility, but can't bring themselves to see that they really aren't the exception to rule.
(3) Don't see that we aren't an island unto ourselves.
(4) Think we get away with it all.
How does this all relate to economics?
Let's start out with one of the things that this article mentions.
". . . After thirty years of stable monetary policy, a good portion of the population doesn't even remember high inflation, and the ones that do are mostly retired and spending down their savings. Americans don't save because . . . well, have you tried the Wii? It's awesome."
Now, many people I know aren't quite this extreme. However, I've known many people (practically everyone I went to high school with) that operate exactly like this when it comes to saving money. There is this urban myth that only rich people can afford to save their money. No, rich people are rich because they saved their money.
As a 20-something year old woman who had the typical middle-class upbringing, I have come to the realization that being self-controlled is rare. You should buy that pair of shoes because "You deserve it". One quart of ice cream never killed a person. Everyone else has an iPod, so I just need to have it so I won't be the odd one out. If it was only one iPod, one quart of ice cream, and one pair shoes, then there wouldn't be problems. It's because people get iPod, the accessories, and download 200 songs in a month. People get "just one" several times in a month.
I, myself, am guilty of this. "Just one thin mint" turned into downing a whole pack in 30 minutes. . . . 4 days in a row. So, I can't really fault any other human for taking this attitude because this is what humans do. I, like virtually every other human being, fail to see I'm part of something bigger than myself.
Next time I'll try to tackle the subject of savings a little more academically.

(sidenote: "smokers, boozers, and pleasure seekers" makes me sound like a fundamentalist. I know of no other way to put it concisely. Smokers = people participating in the drug culture. Boozers = people who take alcohol consumption to an extreme. Pleasure seekers = people who have sex outside of God's design for marriage.)