On 2002-02-17 01:23, Barbara wrote:
Good generational researching about Rogge, Kiff! (Or, else, good guessing from the TV coverage) :lol: And, yea, what's your ice skating connection?

Just a guess about Rogge, from watching him so far.

I have been a figure skating fan for over thirty years, but only a very serious one for about the last fourteen, when I finally learned how to tell a Lutz from a Salchow. :smile:

It occurred to me this week while watching certain Olympic events, that this is a predominately mid-to-late-wave Xer Olympiad (for the Americans, anyway), if S&H cutoffs are strictly followed. 1980 seems to be a good birthyear for many of the youngest ones. Sure, there are some younger, but it appears that many more are older, pushing 25 or 30, as is the case with Picabo Street, Todd Eldridge, etc.

Yes, with one major exception: Apolo Anton Ohno, a first-wave Millie. If you watched his race on Saturday, you could understand if he would have been angry or thrown a tantrum like many other athletes would have. But, no. He was gracious, philosophical, and a good sport. I couldn't help but be struck by this.

Got me to wondering if this could be analyzed (ie, discussed to death, like we love to do :wink: ), as to whether the Olympics are any kind of proof toward S&H's gen age cutoff between Xr and Millie being wrong?

It's defendable that this Olympics is being run in a way that would be fitting of Millies, society-wise. I mean, no one's getting snipered like in Munich. Or, hit with a club. Or, kicked out for subtances, that I know of.

So far. :smile: And one could argue that the resolution of "Skate-gate" fits in as well.

Anything there, ya think? I'm hoping not. I think it's a good thing to treat Xers, even if the last of the Xr youth, nicely for a change. :smile: But, many of them portray what we might assume are Millie traits... :???: However, they also all have that "Just Do It" drive.

And most of these younger Xer Olympians aren't spoiled and pampered like the professionals in the NBA, major league baseball, or the NFL. I bet that also makes a difference.

I love all the kids this year. They have such spunk, professionalism and efficiency. My favorite Americans have been Timothy Goebel (he's my #1 fave), Picabo, Bode Miller, Lindsey Kildow, Joe Pack, Shannon Dunn, Kip Carpenter, and Apollo Ohno (bad luck about his first-race spill, hope his laceration doesn't take him out of his other races).

Me, too. I'm rapidly becoming a fan of his.

The foreign contenders are very good, competitive and interesting, too. I'm not even going to try and name any of them, though! :lol:

Two other observes: I'm noticing more crossing (Catholic sign of the cross) before and after competing. And, it kind of seems that the Cold War is re-appearing!

Only in skating. :smile: I did watch the Russian/USA hockey game the other night(very well played by both teams), but it didn't have the same quality of '80. (Not that I expected it to....)

Oh, and Go Snowboarding! Now, that's an Xr-led victory for legitimacy, fer sure!

Yep! :smile:

Kiff '61

On 2002-02-17 00:44, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-09 01:28, Eric A Meece wrote:
Rush's "thinking" is so far behind the times, that it has yet to catch up to the 3T of the previous saeculum, let alone a present-day 4T that might not have arrived yet. And I think it's complimenting him too much to call what he engages in "thinking."

Eric, it remains to be seen what the 4T will be about. It's perfectly possible that the future will be one where the Rushes of the world win out. It's also possible that the Leftists will finally achieve the victory they dream of (though I predict they wouldn't like it once they had it).

Nobody knows who the winners and losers of Sthe upcoming Cycle culmination will be.

Yet again I agree with you, Hopeful Cynic, on both your main points. In reference to your positing a possible victory of the Right Wing, I am looking at a map of the U.S. that divides the country into the all too familiar Red and Blue Zones by county - a division that is re-emerging. Were we to have the internal conflict that some have suggested as a possible occurrence later in this 4T, the geography alone, as well as the Red Zone's 'gun culture', and the fact that most of the military has been Red Zone since Vietnam, would hint at a strong likelihood of a Red Zone victory, due to so much of the Blue Zone being small, (or not so small)isolated pockets. As for the Leftists most likely not being happy with the results of a Leftist win, we need look no further than the former Soviet Empire's very drab living conditions, which have worsened to horrendous since the Soviet collapse. Still, you're right in saying that we cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of this 4T. Such has always been the case with 4T's in the past, at least until they were well into their regeneracy.

On 2002-02-17 00:44, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-09 01:28, Eric A Meece wrote:
Rush's "thinking" is so far behind the times, that it has yet to catch up to the 3T of the previous saeculum, let alone a present-day 4T that might not have arrived yet. And I think it's complimenting him too much to call what he engages in "thinking."

Eric, it remains to be seen what the 4T will be about. It's perfectly possible that the future will be one where the Rushes of the world win out. It's also possible that the Leftists will finally achieve the victory they dream of (though I predict they wouldn't like it once they had it).

Nobody knows who the winners and losers of Sthe upcoming Cycle culmination will be.

Yet again I agree with you, Hopeful Cynic, on both your main points. In reference to your positing a possible victory of the Right Wing, I am looking at a map of the U.S. that divides the country into the all too familiar Red and Blue Zones by county - a division that is re-emerging. Were we to have the internal conflict that some have suggested as a possible occurrence later in this 4T, the geography alone, as well as the Red Zone's 'gun culture', and the fact that most of the military has been Red Zone since Vietnam, would hint at a strong likelihood of a Red Zone victory, due to so much of the Blue Zone being small, (or not so small) isolated pockets. As for the Leftists most likely not being happy with the results of a Leftist win, we need look no further than the former Soviet Empire's very drab living conditions, which have worsened to horrendous since the Soviet collapse. Still, you're right in saying that we cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of this 4T. Such has always been the case with 4T's in the past, at least until they were well into their regeneracy.

OOPS! Not quite what I had in mind for editing my post. :oops:

02/18/2002 - Updated 12:49 PM ET



Behind its united front, nation as divided as ever

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

A three-part series

Today: The ?values gap? that divided America during the last presidential election is shaping the 2002 and 2004 campaigns.

Tuesday: The ?culture wars? in America are fought over God, gays and guns. Montclair, N.J., and Franklin. Tenn., reflect the nation?s sharp differences.

Wednesday: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 brought Americans together, but old divides are still strong. Terrorism brings changes to both Montclair and Franklin, but their politics remain worlds apart.




When George W. Bush took office, half the country cheered and the other half seethed. Now he enjoys near-universal respect for his handling of the war against terrorism. But behind his high marks is a nation still profoundly divided by values, geography and politics. An eight-month USA TODAY examination of life on each side of the "values gap" has found that terrorism has changed America's mood but not its underlying attitudes. Early presidential candidates and contenders in this year's gubernatorial and congressional elections face the same contentious issues that split the nation in the 2000 election: religion, abortion, guns and the role of government.





From USA TODAY


02/18/2002 - Updated 12:49 PM ET



Behind its united front, nation as divided as ever

By Jill Lawrence, USA



When George W. Bush took office, half the country cheered and the other half seethed. Now he enjoys near-universal respect for his handling of the war against terrorism. But behind his high marks is a nation still profoundly divided by values, geography and politics. An eight-month USA TODAY examination of life on each side of the "values gap" has found that terrorism has changed America's mood but not its underlying attitudes. Early presidential candidates and contenders in this year's gubernatorial and congressional elections face the same contentious issues that split the nation in the 2000 election: religion, abortion, guns and the role of government.




USA TODAY looked at the national "values gap" through the prism of two towns, one on each side of the split. Extensive interviews and polling in Franklin, Tenn., and Montclair, N.J., found that democracy in all its chaotic diversity is in robust health. But they also illuminated the deep divides revealed by the last presidential race.

Recent polls, including a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, show the country remains evenly divided on politics and fractured on values issues:

Percentages of people who say they plan to vote Republican or Democratic in the elections this fall are about equal: 44% for the GOP, 42% for Democrats.


About half of Americans are satisfied and half are dissatisfied with the country's moral climate and policies on abortion and guns.


Four in 10 say they favor letting gay people form civil unions, while half oppose.
"Below the veneer of unity is still a deeply divided nation," says analyst Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes a non-partisan political newsletter. "You've got people who see the government as generally trampling on their liberties and values. You've got others who look to the government for social and economic justice and protection" from corporate abuses, pollution and gun violence.




In a new political world, upended by terrorism and recession, do these differences on values still matter? The answer, USA TODAY found, is yes. In extensive interviews and polls, most voters in Franklin and Montclair made it clear that they only trusted and listened to politicians who shared their values and their way of life.

"Voters don't go to the polls with issue checklists," Rothenberg agrees. "They're looking for somebody they can trust, somebody they're comfortable with."

Both parties expect the 2002 elections to be very tight, and no one at this point is predicting a Bush landslide in 2004. The virtual stalemate means politicians must find a way to connect with voters on both sides of the values gap.

"Winning candidates at the presidential level and even at local and state levels have to draw the swing voters to their sides," says pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. He says that means luring them away from their natural leanings on values and party preference, which now are "dead-even."

The red and the blue

A color-keyed map of the 2000 presidential election results showed a vast red heartland, representing counties won by Republican Bush, and patches of blue indicating the largely urban and minority counties won by Democrat Al Gore. Franklin, 15 miles south of Nashville, was red. Montclair, 12 miles west of Manhattan, was blue. The towns are separated by 750 miles, a time zone and differences that the Sept. 11 attacks did not erase.

Some contrasts between these two sides of America are as obvious as what people eat and how their neighborhoods look. Others are as deep as their immutable views of sin, morality and the right to bear arms.

The terrorist attacks put almost all Americans in a compassionate frame of mind and reminded them of what they love about their country. In Franklin, people are feeling more kindly toward New Yorkers. Montclair is displaying an emotional, flag-waving patriotism more often associated with the South. But, like the nation, these two towns remain polarized on the bedrock beliefs that influence political choices.

Religion and guns are key predictors of those choices. Exit polls from the last presidential election found that those who go to church often and own guns tended to vote Republican; those who don't usually chose Democrats. The gap is also wide on moral issues stemming from religion. USA TODAY/Gallup Polls of Franklin and Montclair in June and November underscore those findings:

In Franklin, 64% say they attend church or religious activities once a week or more, compared with 36% in Montclair and 42% nationally. Nearly seven times as many people in Franklin as in Montclair own guns.
Both before and after the attacks, the towns were at least 30 percentage points apart on how they felt about gay civil rights, the death penalty, illegitimacy and the role of government. After the attacks, they grew even further apart ? up to 44 points ? on abortion, the need for more gun control and how courts treat minorities.
Top priorities in Montclair after the attacks included health care and environmental protection. Franklin's top concerns included declining moral values.
Most in both towns called the country unified, but nearly half said Americans are "greatly divided" on values.
Religion is the wellspring of the culture gap. It's at the root of opposition to abortion and homosexuality in Bush country. It influences how people view government and judge the personal behavior of public figures. It's an engine of diversity in parts of America like Montclair, where religion is often a series of open-ended discussions among people who disagree on issues as basic as whether God exists, and of conformity in areas like Franklin, a town that nourishes people who share conservative religious and cultural views.

A 1999 study by the Pew Research Center found that states normally carried by Republicans in presidential elections and those normally carried by Democrats have grown further apart in the last 15 years on issues of religion, family roles and homosexuality.

Some analysts say the war against terrorism could spawn additional values issues that drive wedges between Americans. One debate simmering now is how much to restrict civil liberties in pursuit of terrorists. Another could develop over how long to fight the war and how far to expand it.

Images and tendencies

Republican strategist Bill McInturff speculates, cheerfully, that a peace candidate will run in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. He predicts both parties will revert to stereotypes they have been trying to temper in recent years ? to use his words, the "kill-the-bad-guys" party (Republicans who tend to favor use of force) and the "root-cause" party (Democrats who tend to look for poverty or other underlying conditions to explain acts like terrorism).

Moderate Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, toiled for years to replace the party's nurturing "mommy" image with more swagger. They promoted tough crime and welfare reforms and a muscular military. Bush, the self-described compassionate conservative, highlighted education and tolerance in 2000 in trying to warm up the GOP's coldly authoritarian "daddy" image. Polls indicate Bush is succeeding, but Democrats are losing ground they gained during the Clinton era.

Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg, James Carville and Bob Shrum say the Sept. 11 attacks create "a moment of opportunity for Democrats." In a memo posted on the Internet, they hint that America's fundamentalist Christians may feel the same discomfort as Afghanistan's Taliban fundamentalists with "the life choices and gender roles at the center of American life."

Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster and strategist, calls that idea "Christian-bashing."

"They directly compare fundamentalist Christians, or conservative Christians, with fundamentalist Muslims," Goeas says. "The implication is very clear that there is a religious intolerance. They're attempting to demonize those people of faith that happen to be conservative. They're basically advocating restarting the culture wars."

Greenberg says "the Taliban have given a bad name to fundamentalism ... in a political guise." He says he is not criticizing fundamentalist Christians but "political entrepreneurs who try to bring a religious fundamentalism into politics" and impose their beliefs.

This is the kind of conversation some Democrats desperately want to avoid. They are trying to make religious, socially conservative Americans in areas like Franklin feel more welcome in their party.

"We have to be more comfortable with the language of faith and values" and address "broad unease with the moral health of the country," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., an Orthodox Jew and a 2004 presidential prospect, said at a party gathering last summer.

Democratic Party leaders have launched a rural outreach program that chairman Terry McAuliffe calls a top priority. The Republican Party, meanwhile, is intensively courting Hispanic voters, and some GOP candidates are trying to make inroads in the black community, which votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

Both parties know values issues can be critical in closely divided states. Many analysts say Gore narrowly lost West Virginia and his native Tennessee ? and with them, the presidency ? because he was perceived as anti-gun.

Democrats call guns a threshold or gatekeeper issue that determines whether voters listen to their candidates talk about jobs, education and other subjects.

"Rural voters just shut us down if they don't agree with us on guns," says Joe Carmichael, chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party. "We lose them around the first turn of the corner."

In his race for Virginia governor last year, Democrat Mark Warner showed his party how to overcome cultural differences. Republicans reminded voters their candidate opposed abortion. They said Warner believed "people of faith" are "a threat to America." But Warner had courted rural Virginia with a bluegrass campaign jingle and support for gun-owner rights. He won trust, the chance to sell his economic plans, and the election.

Lessons for 2004

In the 2000 presidential race, Bush and Gore each had trouble winning trust outside his own party base. Much of Middle America did not believe Gore shared its values, polls and interviews show, and urban America felt the same about Bush.

As recently as August, when Bush returned from a month at his Texas ranch, The Washington Post editorial board noted acerbically that he had spent his vacation "celebrating the values of the Heartland, in not so implicit contrast with our own. ... Those values, he repeated this week, include 'family and faith,' 'neighborliness,' 'the willingness of people to help each other in need.' Which means that we Washingtonians stand for ? what, exactly?"

Less than two weeks later, Washington and New York were attacked, and Bush abruptly became everyone's president.

The feel-good unity could sweep him to re-election in 2004, or it could splinter. Some Republicans are talking about turning out evangelical Christians to ensure that Bush wins the popular vote. He lost it last time by a half-million votes as several million evangelicals stayed home. Bush could motivate them by stressing his faith and opposition to abortion. But that could undercut his attempts to win voters and states he lost last time.

For political leaders, there's always tension between stressing controversial values issues to fire up believers and defusing them in an attempt to win broader support. In his State of the Union address, watched on TV by millions, Bush dwelled on unifying themes and reached across the divide.

He talked at length about the war on terrorism that nearly all Americans support. He mentioned "my friend Ted Kennedy" and his work with the liberal Massachusetts senator on education, an issue the whole country holds dear. And Bush highlighted values championed by moderates and liberals, including respect for women and religious tolerance.

Democrats eyeing Bush's job are doing some outreach of their own.

Gore will tour the country with his wife this year to promote their books on American families ? demonstrating his own family values in the process. His 2000 running mate, Lieberman, is advancing ideas that reinforce his identity as a devout, hawkish politician who thinks Hollywood sometimes overdoes sex and violence. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt say their values are reflected in their push for expanded jobless benefits, a higher minimum wage and prescription-drug aid for seniors on Medicare.

Third-term Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has ready ammunition should anyone think he or his state is too liberal. Ronald Reagan carried Massachusetts twice, he notes, and its property tax revolt was the second in the country, right behind California's. Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and a former prosecutor who describes his record as tough on crime, welfare and federal spending.

Another potential candidate, freshman Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., grew up around guns, religion and small-town Southern values. He says voters want their leaders to be good spouses and parents and "people of faith," and to show understanding of ? if not agreement with ? their views on guns, abortion and other values issues. "The way you talk about these things matters," Edwards says.

Even as polls show the public continuing to rally behind Bush and the war against terrorism, values issues are back on the campaign trail. Shifting candidate positions on abortion and gun control ? and the issues of trust that such shifts raise ? are front and center in contests for governor in California and senator in North Carolina.

"If you think these values issues are unimportant, just watch the midterm races," says Democrat Will Marshall, head of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. "Plenty of Republicans will try to make gun control an issue. Plenty of Democrats will try to make choice (on abortion) an issue. We're going to have the same kinds of divides."

On 2002-02-18 08:50, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-02-17 01:23, Barbara wrote:
it kind of seems that the Cold War is re-appearing!

Only in skating. :smile: I did watch the Russian/USA hockey game the other night(very well played by both teams), but it didn't have the same quality of '80. (Not that I expected it to....)

Considering that members of both teams play together in the NHL, it should be no surprise that the play would be less, um, cutthroat, than it was between the old Red Army Teams and the Collegiate All-Stars that composed the Olympic teams of the USSR and USA during the Cold War. For example, there were at least four Detroit Red Wings on the ice during that game--Federov and Larionov for the Russians and Chelios and Hull for the US. There may have been more--I think at least one of the Bure brothers plays for Detroit, while the other plays for Chicago. I had people to root for on both sides in this one! In fact, I have Red Wings to root for on five different national teams--Russian, US, Canadian, Czech, and Swedish. Ain't globalization grand? :smile:

Hi!

SNIPPED NESTED QUOTE

That's the article I was referring to this morning, LOL. Could mean that we're still in 3T, or it could mean that this 4T might include Civil War II. Stay tuned.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I think we're till in 3T, but that doesn't mean I'm sanguine about the upcoming 4T.

I'm about to comment on one tiny bit of 3T evidence over on the TV thread.

One of the interesting things about the Red/Blue zone map to me is that you can literally see the 60's "Consciousness Revolution" wave in the Southwest (e.g. Santa Fe), along with California and up the coast to Washington and Oregon.

I also suspect that the liberal regions in the upper Midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin) reflect migrations during the Transendental era. When I was growing up in Wisconsin I was told that some of the breweries in the center of the state were founded by utopian communities int the 1840s. Seems possible that some of that rubbed off and is reflected by liberalism of many rural areas in the state.

It would be very intersting to look at the founding of utopian communities during past Awakenings, and adjust the Red/Blue for population -- and see if there's more to it than an urban/rural split.

On 2002-02-19 00:10, pindiespace wrote:
It would be very intersting to look at the founding of utopian communities during past Awakenings, and adjust the Red/Blue for population -- and see if there's more to it than an urban/rural split.

I can think of at least two red zone states that won't support that theory: Texas and Utah.

The costumes in pairs ice dancing seem to symbolize something. Is skating in rags a call to return to the old days of the Awakening (#T) or a premonition of the horrors of the coming Crisis; or just bad tatse. Do advise.

Hi!

On 2002-02-19 05:51, Lis '54 wrote:

On 2002-02-19 00:10, pindiespace wrote:
It would be very intersting to look at the founding of utopian communities during past Awakenings, and adjust the Red/Blue for population -- and see if there's more to it than an urban/rural split.

I can think of at least two red zone states that won't support that theory: Texas and Utah.

Heh, true, some lasted longer than others, and not all were of the same ideology.

:smile:

On 2002-02-19 00:10, pindiespace wrote:
One of the interesting things about the Red/Blue zone map to me is that you can literally see the 60's "Consciousness Revolution" wave in the Southwest (e.g. Santa Fe), along with California and up the coast to Washington and Oregon.

I also suspect that the liberal regions in the upper Midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin) reflect migrations during the Transendental era. When I was growing up in Wisconsin I was told that some of the breweries in the center of the state were founded by utopian communities int the 1840s. Seems possible that some of that rubbed off and is reflected by liberalism of many rural areas in the state.

It would be very intersting to look at the founding of utopian communities during past Awakenings, and adjust the Red/Blue for population -- and see if there's more to it than an urban/rural split.

This is a thoughtful idea adding some well-needed dimensional to this split, Pindie. I would be curious as to whether this last Awakening could explain any amount of recent change (last 30 years) in certain states toward either zone or toward a dichotomy. Me thinks, tho, that it is just one factor that must be combined with other cultural and industrial evolutions to explain convincingly...

Neither am I. In fact, one of my darker fears is that this coming 4T (or maybe already begun) will feature both Civil War II and World War III. No speculation as to in what order.

My darkest scenario would be that a world war would strike in the midst of a very bitter civil one....

Bush turns on the propaganda machine.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/gen...nce/index.html

On 2002-02-19 06:54, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
The costumes in pairs ice dancing seem to symbolize something. Is skating in rags a call to return to the old days of the Awakening (#T) or a premonition of the horrors of the coming Crisis; or just bad tatse. Do advise.

The latter, Virgil. No doubt. And last night, even without the falls by the Canadian and Italian couples, was undoubtedly the most pathetic display of ice dancing ever seen at the Olympics. I thought the Lithuanian team, of the last several couples, was the only one worth watching. And they finished fifth.

It wouldn't pain me at all if ice dancing were kicked out of the Olympics.

Kiff '61

On 2002-02-19 11:13, madscientist wrote:
Bush turns on the propaganda machine.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/gen...nce/index.html

I feel an Orwellian moment coming on...

WAR IS PEACE!!!!

Sheesh. Who do these guys think they're fooling, anyway? Do they really think the people "over there" are that dumb?

Kiff '61

On 2002-02-19 12:35, Kiff '61 wrote:
...
I feel an Orwellian moment coming on...

Yes, definitely. Goebbels (sp?) has risen from the dead!

Sheesh. Who do these guys think they're fooling, anyway? Do they really think the people "over there" are that dumb?

The Bush Administration must realize that just because Bush is a retard, doesn't imply that everyone else is.

In a way, this is an extreme form of post-seasonal thinking. This kinda reminds me of Radio Free Europe, which was a CIA-run radio station in Europe (began in 1949) whose lies were so blatant that for a while, it was illegal to print transcripts of it in the US.

It might've worked then, but it will not work in a world in which most nations are in 3T.


_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"Not to know is bad, but to refuse to know is worse." -- A Gambian Proverb

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-02-19 12:47 ]</font>

On 2002-02-19 12:30, Kiff '61 wrote:

The latter, Virgil. No doubt. And last night, even without the falls by the Canadian and Italian couples, was undoubtedly the most pathetic display of ice dancing ever seen at the Olympics. I thought the Lithuanian team, of the last several couples, was the only one worth watching. And they finished fifth.

It wouldn't pain me at all if ice dancing were kicked out of the Olympics.

Kiff '61

My seven-year-old daughter was wowed by the Israeli pair. Of course, she learns those songs that were the music in religious education.

I agree with Kiff -- many of the dances werer slutty.

On 2002-02-19 12:35, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-02-19 11:13, madscientist wrote:
Bush turns on the propaganda machine.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/gen...nce/index.html

I feel an Orwellian moment coming on...

WAR IS PEACE!!!!

Sheesh. Who do these guys think they're fooling, anyway? Do they really think the people "over there" are that dumb?

Look at all the people they are fooling here at home! Goebbels and the boys found the secret recipe. Their philosophical heirs in the Bush network refined it to the point that..."One packet makes two quarts!

On 2002-02-19 14:22, Stonewall Patton wrote:


Look at all the people they are fooling here at home!

That was the understatement of the year!

:sad:

That's what really spooks me. The folks overseas may be more savvy to this stuff than Americans are. Yikes.

Kiff '61

_________________
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure....You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world." -- Nelson Mandela

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2002-02-19 14:36 ]</font>

All of us who live in the United States have been totally immersed for all of our lives in the largest propaganda/psychological warfare campaign in history...its called advertising. Modern(post WW2) advertising comes directly from the psychwar research and practices of WW2, the people who worked for the allied side went into Madison Avenue after the war and there has always been a huge amount of interaction between the two endeavors.
Its possible for a person to get clear of alot of the conditioning that we have been given (or are you completely free of the desire to buy stuff that you don't need?) but, like a fish surrounded by water, most people don't notice that they're being bombarded with manipulative messages.
"Hey, consumers, its your patriotic duty to go shoppin, max out your credit cards, and tell Osama bin Laden to poke it in his eye. God bless America!" :smile:
Also, regarding people who live in much less media-saturated environments such as Afghanistan, think of them as people whose immune systems are much less ready to deal with propaganda than ours may be. What seems laughable to us may be much more persuasive to someone in another culture. Hey, isn't that one of the objections of these fundamentalist groups, that America is undermining their cultures with our consumer culture?
Thank you, I feel much better, my ranting is done for the moment.

Hi!