Albert Ellis, Influential Figure in Modern Psychology, Dies at 93


Recommended Posts

Albert Ellis, Influential Figure in Modern Psychology, Dies at 93

By MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN

The New York Times

July 24, 2007

Here are some other notices:

Albert Ellis, Ph.D., September 27, 1913 - July 24, 2007 (Albert Ellis Institute)

In Memory of a great man Albert Ellis, PhD 1913-2007 (Official Albert Ellis site)

Noted Psychologist Albert Ellis Dies

The Board of Trustees of The Albert Ellis Institute Mourns The Death Of Dr. Albert Ellis

Here is the Wikipedia article: Albert Ellis

Dr. Ellis helped Nathaniel Branden's career in psychology in the early years of Objectivism up to a famous public debate with NB where he criticized some of Rand's ideas and writing and was subsequently shunned. In retaliation, he wrote a book—one of the first serious critiques of the Objectivist movement—that is now available online in an updated version (pdf):

Are Capitalism, Objectivism, and Libertarianism Religions? Yes!

As the founder of Rational Emotive therapy, he could be called a rational pragmatist in psychology. His therapy was successful because it worked for a lot of people. His brilliant work on addiction has aided countless addicts to get better, so in addition to his historical importance, I personally mourn his loss.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael;

This is one of those deaths that your first reaction is didn't he die a long time ago.

Dr. Ellis provided some early associates for Branden in the early days. Dr Roger Callahan was an associate of Dr. Ellis and then became associated with Nathaniel Branden and Objectivism.

Ellis advocated a more rational ethical base than many therapists of that time. Many therapist were religious. Freudians or Behaviorists.

I think Dr. Ellis did some good and helped some patients. I think that is the greatest praise for a therapist.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

Here is something George H. Smith just wrote on his Atlantis II forum (Post dated Jul 24, 2007 8:09 pm):

Years ago, when Reason Magazine asked a number of prominent intellectuals which books they would want if they were stranded on a desert island, Ellis included *Atheism: The Case Against God* in his list. Given the heavy Randian influence on that book, I don't think Ellis was as hostile to some aspects of Objectivism as he was commonly thought to be.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

Here is a quote from the Introduction to Are Capitalism, Objectivism, and Libertarianism Religions? Yes!. I read this years ago when it was simply Is Objectivism a Religion?, but I remember the passage about endorsing Nathaniel's application to APA and client referrals being the same.

I corresponded with and then met Nathaniel Branden several times, starting in the late 1950’s, and I always felt friendly toward him. We collaborated once in combating the puritanical views of Adela Rogers St. Johns, a popular novelist, when all three of us appeared together on the Kup’s Show on television in Chicago.

I later endorsed Branden’s application for membership in the American Psychological Association since I felt that he had an excellent grasp of the theories of psychotherapy. On his side, he referred several clients to me over the years and also used as referral sources some of my associates in the Albert Ellis Institute, who practice REBT in the United States and abroad.

I seem to remember some other small details about their professional interactions in the early days that I read over time, but they are vague and I will have to think on them and try to remember where I read them. I had the impression that Dr. Ellis had introduced Roger Callahan and Lee Shulman to Nathaniel, but on looking that up, I see this was not the case. They simply all knew each other.

Both Nathaniel (in MYWAR, p. 317) and Dr. Ellis (in the book above, Chapter 14) gave essentially the same description of the 1967 debate fact-wise, although Dr. Ellis's description is much longer and more detailed. But their views of each other, their evaluations of the event and their opinions about each other's work are... er... a bit different...

:)

Still, Dr. Ellis can write (at the end of the Introduction to his above book): "I think that people such as Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden are worthy, enjoyable opponents."

And Nathaniel can write (MYWAR, p. 317): "Although I hardly appreciated this at the time, I came to see that some of his concerns about the attitudes and behavior evident in the Objectivist subsubculture—fanaticism, dogmatism, oppressive moralism—were justified, his misrepresentations of Objectivist theory notwithstanding."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ I still have his original 'book-critique of O'ism.' Most properly interpreted, it's a critique of O'ism's, of then (though not much different from now, reading some present blogs/forums of late, methinks) followers/acceptors/'students'/wannabes.

~ I had a prob reading this originally when he made clear by the 3rd chapter that he had to call in some professional (philosophical arguers) guns to deal with his non-fortes re the philosophy per se ('tautology' concerns were only one chapter). He needed others to 'argue against' the philosophy? Why? Methinks he saw something, in his view of the philosophy (which N. Branden has argued elsewhere; but then, Ellis had some influence on NB, no?) that called forth a certain psychological archetype; an 'authoritarian' decider...who was quick to judge, especially negatively; a 'judger' who argued the molehills of dislikes into the mountains of evilness. Ellis didn't put it this way, but, I believe this is where he came from; and, NB agreed...eventually.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Ntl, Ellis' bona-fide and worthwhile arguments were, as expectable, about the psychology shown re too many of O-ism's followers of then. He had a point there, which I experientially discovered later...and see still existing nowadays.

~ That aside, I think that in HIS case, his book, and attitudes re O'ism had little to do with the philosophy per se, and more to do with the way advocates of it dealt with criticisms about it. He ostensibly was against 'The Song', but, really, wasn't even much against The Singer; he was against the mob-Choir he saw coming; the dogmatists dogmatically asserting that they don't accept Rand in any 'rationalistic' way whatsoever; they accept her by 'reason' analysis (r-i-g-h-t). He saw reason to believe the rationalism useable by the 'reason' followers would be used against any and all criticizers.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Generally, I've had little regard for Ellis' ideas in psychology; however THIS book of his, it's philo-critique flaws aside, is worthwhile reading for getting a 'reading' on present-day self-called "O-ists." It was ahead of its time, psychologically-speaking; indeed, it was the anti-PARC...and still is.

Albert Ellis, R.I.P.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albert Ellis was an extremely influential figure in clinical psychology. He wrote books that you may agree or disagree with, but there is no mistaking his message.

I didn't realize that he had revised Is Objectivism a Religion? before his death. It was done without fanfare--and without any effort at republication in hard copy. Is Objectivism a Religion? was one of just two books that his institute allowed to go out of print; the other was titled Homosexuality: Its Cause and Cure.

The original book is worth reading, if you can find it (it's become a collector's item). About 1/4 of it is aimed at dogmatism and deification among Objectivists, and subsequent experience shows it to have been on target. (Ellis also goes after attitudes about sex in Objectivist publications that strike him as puritanical. In 1967, he had no way of knowing that some of these statements also were also public misrepresentations of the way that Ayn Rand actually lived.)

The rest is pretty much crap. Ellis claimed to be an authority on philosophy of science and offered warmed-over logical positivism. He claimed to be an authority on economics and confidently predicted that the Soviet Union would go on indefinitely while becoming more prosperous.

The revised version needs to be put to the We The Living test. It should be carefully compared with the original (if you can get access to the original--your best bet is to obtain it from a library). If Ellis was frank in his revisions, then in 2003 he will have admitted how wrong he had been about the Soviet Union. If he wasn't, then he he will have taken out or downplayed his self-assured prognostications from 36 years earlier, without notifying the reader.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert;

Thanks for the post. I read Dr. Ellis's book on Objectivism but I had forgotten the business about the USSR.

I find it interesting that he allowed his book on homosexuality to also go out of print. At a Summer Seminar I asked Nataniel Branden who claimed he had successfully "treated" homosexuality in his Basic Principles of Objectivist Psychology, Branden still claimed success but he said he would not do it today.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I didn't even remember the other parts about science and Soviet Union. Dayaamm!

I find the dichotomy Dr. Ellis sets up between self-esteem and self-acceptance to be really weird. It seems like a quirk. But the good he has done by spreading self-acceptance (especially among recovering addicts - his approach is called Smart Recovery) is one reason I see it as a quirk to be dismissed or overlooked, and not a reason to invalidate all of his thinking.

I get the feeling that his emphasis on this dichotomy is personal and an ego thing (in the petty sense). The way he talks about self-esteem certainly has nothing to do with what Nathaniel means.

And I do agree with Nathaniel that he misrepresents Objectivist theory. Several times I tried to read the revised book and I kept getting stuck by the thought, "But that's just a wrong meaning he is rebutting." Who wants to read pages of rebuttal of something they know is wrong in the first place? This always shut me down reading-wise because I start getting bored.

I suppose one day it would be a good thing to go through that book and make a series of observations on what he meant by a term and what the real Objectivist meaning is.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a particular attitude by Dr. Ellis and his followers that is a crying shame—and it permeates the Objectivists subculture, also. Hopefully, as time goes, this attitude will be dropped.

For some damn reason, some people think that one can only advance a good idea by trashing other good ideas. Often, the trashing comes with a complete misrepresentation of the ideas being trashed. And excellent and unfortunate example with REBT is found on this page of articles on the Smart Recovery site. Among excellent titles with great ideas for recovery, one finds titles like: " How to Get Self-Control," "USA: Unconditional Self-Acceptance," "Anger: A Disabling Emotion," " Looking at Root Problems" and so forth, but then a couple of others jump out: "AA vs. SMART" and "The Trouble with Self-Esteem."

(sigh)

AA (12 step) bashing and Self-Esteem bashing. My own opinion is that this is just plain silly. Some of the ideas, advice and techniques of REBT are so powerful and beneficial, this kind of crap is not needed to sell them. In fact, once you start looking, you see that there are no real dragons to be slain. There is only vanity. Dr. Ellis's work and career are too distinguished to keep staining it by perpetuating personal grudges. This is behavior similar to orthodox Objectivists.

We are fortunate that Nathaniel did answer the misrepresentation of his work and, for those interested, here is the issue in a nutshell.

The Trouble with Self-Esteem by Michael R. Edelstein (PDF version here).

This essay is presumably the one Edelstein published in Liberty. It is a perfect presentation of the way Nathaniel's work is misrepresented. For those familiar with Nathaniel's work, the article's section titles will already point to the errors:

What Self-Esteem Is

Doubts about High Self-Esteem

Invisible Low Self-Esteem

Authentic and Inauthentic Self-Esteem

The Alternative to Self-Esteem

The Gap in Self-Esteem Theory

Problems with Self-Esteem

Just Say No to High Self-Esteem

Edelstein presents Self-Esteem as if it were a rating system and an impediment to self-acceptance. This is the view Dr. Ellis has consistently presented over the years. They completely ignore the fact that self-acceptance is the foundation of Nathaniel's approach to Self-Esteem and, as he explains in the essay below, there is no rating in the manner they present.

For the Record by Nathaniel Branden

(This is a PDF file, but go here and scroll down for a popup version.) For the sake of convenience, here is the text:

For the Record

Nathaniel Branden, PhD

In the January issue of “Liberty,” Dr. Michael R. Edelstein published an article entitled “The Trouble with Self-Esteem,” in which he mischaracterizes and then attacks my theory of self-esteem.

To anyone familiar with the writings of Dr. Albert Ellis, the intellectual influence on Dr. Edelstein is obvious. Dr. Ellis has been misrepresenting my views for over three decades (ever since our debate in New York City in the 1960s) and the Liberty article seems to follow in that tradition, although I must acknowledge that Dr. Edelstein and I are now pursuing a rather benevolent e-mail “conversation” aimed at seeing if greater mutual understanding is possible.

In his article, Dr. Edelstein writes: “Branden maintains that we’re worthwhile human beings if we make good choices, act honestly and act with integrity. We can then esteem ourselves highly because we can tell ourselves, in Branden’s words, 'I coped well with the basic challenges of life.'”

Elsewhere in the article he implies that my approach is expressed in this view: “a person judges his performance to be good, then he forms a higher opinion of HIMSELF, not just his performance. Then he basks in the glow of contemplating what a terrific person he is. Then, he feels happier, and performs even better.”

1. Nowhere do I ever state that we are “worthwhile human beings if we make good choices, act honestly and act with integrity.” That way of thinking about self-esteem is totally foreign to my approach. I never write or talk about who is or is not “a worthwhile human being.” That is the way Drs. Ellis and Edelstein think about self-esteem, not the way I do. Read “The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem” and judge for yourself.

And “Branden” would never write or say “I coped well with the challenges of life,” as, in effect, explaining why I (or whoever) enjoys good self-esteem.

2. Self-esteem is a particular way of experiencing the self. I define self-esteem as the disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as worthy of happiness. I will not attempt here to summarize the entire theory and the reasoning behind it. But to clarify that my concept of self-esteem has very little to do with “rating” oneself in the way Dr. Edelstein suggests, I offer the following observations.

Let us say that you are in poor physical shape and also experience yourself as being in poor physical shape-that is, tire easily, have little stamina, often get short of breath, are physically weak, etc. The problem here, obviously, is not that you “rate” yourself as being in poor physical shape, the problem is that you ARE in poor physical shape. Then, let’s say, you join a gym, hire a trainer, and begin to work on improving your condition. You lose weight, become more flexible, grow stronger, develop better stamina, etc. As a consequence, two things happen: you become in better physical shape and you experience yourself as being in better physical shape. Your experience is not the result of mere “rating.” Rather, it reflects a direct perception of reality. You are experiencing an objective change in your physical condition.

“ Rating” is not the issue. If you are in lousy shape physically, but refuse to “rate” your condition-will you then experience yourself as physically fit as a person who eats wisely and exercises regularly?

Now apply the same thinking to self-esteem.

Let us say that you spend too much of your life operating semi-consciously; denying and disowning your thoughts, feelings, and actions; avoiding responsibility for your choices and actions; blaming others for all your misfortunes; refusing to be accountable for anything; surrendering to your fear of self-expression or self-assertiveness so you are rarely authentic in your interactions with others; drifting through life without focus, purpose, or goals; and permitting yourself many contradictions between what you know, what you profess, and what you do. As a consequence, you do not feel very competent in the face of life’s challenges; you’re are not proud of your choices and actions; you have little confidence in your mind (since you avoid using it); and you are unable to feel respect for yourself.

Bottom line: you don’t have much self-esteem. Does this mean you are “worthless?” Of course not. This notion is the Ellis/Edelstein straw man.

And is the problem of your low self-esteem merely a result of “self-rating?” If you could somehow avoid such “rating,” would you feel as happy with yourself as a person who lived consciously, self-acceptingly, self-responsibly, self-assertively, purposefully, and with integrity?

Note I am not saying that you “should” damn yourself as a worthless human being (which is what Ellis/Edelstein suggest is my position). I am saying that over time our choices and actions irresistibly affect how we think and feel about ourselves. Ellis/Edelstein seem to be saying that if only we abstain from “self-rating,” our rationality or irrationality need have no effect on our sense of self. (To say it again: Self-esteem is a particular way of experiencing the self.)

No psychotherapist in his right mind would ever suggest that one “should” feel self-damnation. If there is anything therapists agree on, it is that self-acceptance is the necessary foundation of healthy change and growth. In several of my books I have written about the importance of self-acceptance and the counter-productiveness of self-repudiation or self-damnation-see, for example, “How to Raise Your Self-Esteem” and “The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem”.

If someone wants to challenge my theory of self-esteem, I will welcome the opportunity to learn. But first, let’s be clear on what I’ve said and not said.

Copyright © 2001, Nathaniel Branden, All Rights Reserved

These thoughts should be read carefully by REBT people and then they should evaluate whether they are being fair and correct in their presentations of what they bash. In everything post-break with Rand I have read by Nathaniel Branden, I have not encountered one misrepresentation of REBT.

I suppose one day I should write something in defense of AA in light of REBT (or Smart Recovery) literature. One gets the impression that the REBT people would like nothing more than for all the 12-step programs to close their doors. That would be a real shame in my case because if that had happened, I might not be sitting here writing right now. I would be dead.

I wonder when all the bickering between schools of psychology (and addiction recovery) is going to stop.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Probably when 'bickering' everywhere else by everyone else over everthing else...has.

~ Our species will be involved in inter-galactic travel by then.

~ As Campbell spelled out: this book had its (dare I say, worthwhile?) points, and, Ellis has his place in Psychology...as does Freud...regardless the distortion of Branden's seminal (and often ignored by other noteds commenting on the subject as well) thoughts on self-esteem.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I met Ellis at a psychology conference many years ago and we were able to talk for a few minutes between lectures. This would have been in the eighties. I had always liked his theoretical approach compared to Freudian, Jungian, behavioral or many of the 100's of other theories, but felt that his failure to recognize the problems with REBT that Nathaniel had pointed out (in debate and in writing) was disappointing.

I remember being struck by what to me was an unhappy little man, somewhat bitter, and a little mean-spirited. When he learned that my clinical orientation and theoretical approach were learned from Branden, he had some very harsh words to say about that. He was not a fan of Nathaniel on that day! It isn't fair to judge someone from such a short encounter, and it isn't logical to judge the content of a theory by the personality of its founder - even if it is a psychological theory. But, my impression at the time was that his theory's flaws seemed to fit his personality, in much the same way that Nathaniel's theory fits his happy and bold personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

From the reading I've done (three books out of a huge corpus that Dr. Ellis produced) I get the impression that he was frequently angry, which may help to explain his emphasis on transcending anger...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The more I read Branden's writings (such as that posted above synopsizing his own beliefs), the more I am taken by the fact that so much of self-esteem depends on psychological perceptions not performed in the space of conscious awareness. The "experience" of self-esteem, as such, is descriptive of what Branden might say to be an "unconscious evaluation" of one's ability to cope with life's basic challenges and worthy of happiness. It's interesting that at no point does the experience of self-esteem depend directly upon conscious assessment per se. Rather, the beauty again of Branden's consistency in theory is that consciousness is a tool, it is a means of working for or against the unconscious self-that-is. And it is the unconscious that is the place where needs are known and expression arises.

We are caretakers of ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think that Dr. Ellis is an objectivist himself though not by name. He is a man of reason, one who does not shun facts and that is enough for one to live by. I just recently read this post. I think I may be closer to his theories than Freud's.

Dr. Albert Ellis - may he live forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Dr. Ellis is an objectivist himself though not by name. He is a man of reason, one who does not shun facts and that is enough for one to live by. I just recently read this post. I think I may be closer to his theories than Freud's.

Dr. Albert Ellis - may he live forever.

Dr. Ellis wrote a book attacking Objectivism in the early 70ths. I don't know if he and Nathaniel Branden ever had any further contact after their debate in 1967. You are probably right about Objectivist theories and Freud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Dr. Ellis is an objectivist himself though not by name. He is a man of reason, one who does not shun facts and that is enough for one to live by. I just recently read this post. I think I may be closer to his theories than Freud's.

Dr. Albert Ellis - may he live forever.

Dr. Ellis wrote a book attacking Objectivism in the early 70ths. I don't know if he and Nathaniel Branden ever had any further contact after their debate in 1967. You are probably right about Objectivist theories and Freud.

And I think that what makes Objectivism and its embodiments great. The mere fact that one "attacks" it, only adds fuel to the flame. That is, you present new findings to the philosophy thereby complementing the vision or assertion of Rand that it is not a static philosophy. Besides, I don't think he could refute principles (universals), lest he couldn't have gotten along with (at least) the persons who represented it for any length of time but mostly the axioms that it presents.

I've read somewhere in this thread that he admired Rand and Branden as opponents but the operant word there being: admire. He saw the world in a different perspective and that is exactly the point of being an objectivist. To see for oneself. As far as I have read, both him and NB argued rationally and used facts to present their cases but one saw a flaw in the others' reasoning that they perhaps could not come to a solid conclusion or resolved in that given period but that he remained true to his convictions is amazing. He probably saw something which Rand or Branden failed to mention or the other way around - I don't know. Still, he was in the same sphere of thinking and he could have wanted a more appropriate label to conceptualize what characteristics he saw.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Dr. Ellis is an objectivist himself though not by name. He is a man of reason, one who does not shun facts and that is enough for one to live by. I just recently read this post. I think I may be closer to his theories than Freud's.

Dr. Albert Ellis - may he live forever.

Dr. Ellis wrote a book attacking Objectivism in the early 70ths. I don't know if he and Nathaniel Branden ever had any further contact after their debate in 1967. You are probably right about Objectivist theories and Freud.

"Is Objectivism A Religion" was published in 1968. It's a quick and easy read/rant retaliation for the May 1967 debate with Nathaniel Branden where his supporters were vastly outnumbered by Rand supporters. I think I once read there were 1100 people in the audience, but don't know and if so that was a huge room in that hotel at 8th Ave. and 34th St. I'm tentative about the location too. I wasn't there. I'd love to hear the complete tape, wherever it is. I don't know if it still exists. That would have been the absolute crazy epitome of the insular New York Objectivist culture.

As I've mentioned before in other forums if not this one, 1968 was an interesting year. "The Break," which broke the back of Objectivist cult culture and caused most Objectivists to re-evaluate what their proper relationship to others and themselves and ideas should be, was also the year President Johnson threw in the towel on Vietnam and the idea he might run for re-election. This essentially broke the back of general American subservience in the psychological sense to the authority of the state relative to its war-fighting competence and its sanction. It wasn't enough--it didn't go far enough; the size of the state never really stopped increasing and generally accelerated, but the cultural shift was almost palpably real. That's why today politicians are held in such general low regard but they keep getting re-elected anyway. It's no longer "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," a progressive, fascist sentiment, it's what my country can do for me, loot wise.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Dr. Ellis is an objectivist himself though not by name. He is a man of reason, one who does not shun facts and that is enough for one to live by. I just recently read this post. I think I may be closer to his theories than Freud's.

Dr. Albert Ellis - may he live forever.

Dr. Ellis wrote a book attacking Objectivism in the early 70ths. I don't know if he and Nathaniel Branden ever had any further contact after their debate in 1967. You are probably right about Objectivist theories and Freud.

"Is Objectivism A Religion" was published in 1968. It's a quick and easy read/rant retaliation for the May 1967 debate with Nathaniel Branden where his supporters were vastly outnumbered by Rand supporters. I think I once read there were 1100 people in the audience, but don't know and if so that was a huge room in that hotel at 8th Ave. and 34th St. I'm tentative about the location too. I wasn't there. I'd love to hear the complete tape, wherever it is. I don't know if it still exists. That would have been the absolute crazy epitome of the insular New York Objectivist culture.

As I've mentioned before in other forums if not this one, 1968 was an interesting year. "The Break," which broke the back of Objectivist cult culture and caused most Objectivists to re-evaluate what their proper relationship to others and themselves and ideas should be, was also the year President Johnson threw in the towel on Vietnam and the idea he might run for re-election. This essentially broke the back of general American subservience in the psychological sense to the authority of the state relative to its war-fighting competence and its sanction. It wasn't enough--it didn't go far enough; the size of the state never really stopped increasing and generally accelerated, but the cultural shift was almost palpably real. That's why today politicians are held in such general low regard but they keep getting re-elected anyway. It's no longer "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," a progressive, fascist sentiment, it's what my country can do for me, loot wise.

--Brant

Wait, "objectivist culture", you mean to say an objectivist 'way of life'? That's preposterous Brant. There is no 'manual' of how to become an objectivist. Only the law of nature and causality. If there ever existed such a monstrosity as a 'your life in a box' book for objectivism.

It would also imply that if you are an objectivist, you could simply pass the practice along to the nth generation as in culture. I do not care about Rand's supporters who were there nor their numbers but I can see the merit of Rand as a philosopher and author of fiction. So far, I have found what she's saying is true but before I do, it implies that I question what she's saying first. She did not preach - at least to me- on how to live, but stated nature's requirements which are self-evident.

What the hell, I'd still be living rationally even if objectivism was not coined. I am thankful to Rand that she gave appropriate words for what I have been practicing but not for my existence.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't preposterous back then, David. It happened; I was immersed in it. It looks preposterous looking back on it, but a lot of things do--like the Vietnam War.

--Brant

more reading, more reading

Ahh youth...

I thought it was obvious that Roosevelt should have been impeached when he went for that third term, until I realized from listening to so many folks how terrifying the Great Depression actually was.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now