On 2002-08-08 11:08, Marc Lamb wrote:

The liberal response to the first story, Those greedy, :evil: Republicans!

The liberal response to the second story, So what, everybody :razz: does it!

The response of independents =

F'ing Clinton. Who?s that other guy? Heck, they all seem like crooks so what's the point

Response to first story: Those idiot politicians.

Response to the second story: Those idiot politicians!

_________________
Buz Painter
Never for a long time have I been this
confused.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: buzzard44 on 2002-08-08 15:23 ]</font>

That's cute. It's satire to the fullest. The last bullet point on the back cover is : "Why it's never O.K. to poison the neighbors dog".

Side note, I have a book I read to my children from 1952. It's still in print today, a 'Golden Book' titled We Help Mommy. The children, make all the beds in the morning, dust, make lunch,wash the dishes, wash clothes, hang them on the line to dry, then they get to play!. Once a week they go to the store with mommy and carry the groceries home in paper bags.
The little girl makes a homemade cherry tart for daddy, they clean up all the toys. And go to bed.
My older Millie daughter asks, "What does the mother DO ?

.... Why I otta'... :wink:

On 2002-08-08 15:56, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-08-08 06:18, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

Well, it says it was published in March of 2001, so unless you are suggesting a catalyst prior to 9/11, it couldn't have been what made this book popular. Frankly I get a good laugh out of seeing the "A Good Citizen Eats Meat" section. At first that part shocked me. I couldn't IMAGINE that those things were actually printed in those days.

That was one of the book's more hilarious lines, but maybe not so amazing considering the thinking in the 1950s. There were four food groups that you were supposed to eat from every day, and meat was probably the only one of the four that the nutritionists at the time thought that Americans weren't getting enough of. So I could certainly see campaigns to get Americans to eat more meat.

Today we have groups and books saying that a good citizen does *not* eat meat, and they might similarly be made fun of 40 years from now.

By the way, can you tell what generation each of the nine Amazon reviewers belongs to? What generations can you figure out?

Hmm...

In order:

1. Boomer or Silent

Definitely Silent... seems a little old to be a Boomer and a little too subversive for a GI

2. 13er

Seems very much like a 13er; however, remember that she identified herself as a "teen" in 4/1/02 so I'd place her into the chasm of Generation Y

3. Boomer

Sounds right

4. Millie?

Either a serious Millie or a satirical 13er

5. Millie or Boomer

Boomer... Millies can't have true 'nostalgia' for that time

6. Boomer

Boy Scout in early 1960s? Definitely a Boomer

7. No idea, might be Boomer or even an angry 13er

Seems like a Joneser to me due to the sarcasm

8. 13er

With a name like Azrael it *HAS* to be a 13er :smile:

9. Not sure. Boomer?

Sounds more like Boom than anything else

A Guide to Proper Behavior


R. Gregory '67 wrote:
"With tongue firmly in cheek, I offer up the following as further evidence that we are in a Fourth Turning..."

Knowing my interest in generations, My wife got my this little book as a Christmas gag gift. But this is not 4T thing, but rather a 3T thing. Much that is in this book was published in the 1920's.

There are many misconceptions about the 1920's here at this website. S&H probably staked too much attention on the revisionist version than was really necessary. Here's a prerecorded post where I tried to identify more of what the twenties were really all about:

<center>____________________________</center>
When one considers the importance of the decade ending year of 1929 for example, a decade S&H describe as:

<FONT SIZE="-1"><center>"Up until the fall of 1929, America still inhabited a decade then known as "an era of wonderful nonsense." Through the '20s, America felt increasingly wild, its daily life propelled ever faster by a stream of thrilling and innovative technologies, its government increasingly discredited and irrelevant, its culture hopelessly cleaved between the Prohibitionist "booboisie" and the jaded pleasure seekers, its public captivated by what Hemingway called a "movable feast" of celebrities and trifles."</FONT></center>

Well considering what came after, that image of the twenties was the one most noted by historians, including S&H. But Roderick Nash's Nervous Generation (1970), argues that this image only presents one side of a time he acknowledges as a troubled "nervous" America, but that we were, in the 1920s, "seeking a reaffirmation of old and familiar values," and that his study of that decade led him to conclude that America was desparately seeking a "heroic culture".

Well, seeing how a vast number of the GI generation (according to S&H) came of age from 1919 to 1929... this "hero cult" makes sense.

Indeed, author Susan Curtis in A Consuming Faith: The Social Gospel and Modern American Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), presents the case that in the twenties we were "a people confident and looking toward the future, with only the occasional backwards glance." This seems to me much different from the "booboisie" that S&H wish to latch on to, and one they need not dwell heavily upon to make their point.

<center>____________________________</center>

On 2002-08-08 15:28, R. Gregory '67 wrote:


I wasn't being serious in suggesting that the book is a sign of a 4T. But, if too many people are taking seriously what was obviously a satire, that might be evidence of a 4T.

I was never quite sure how seriously to take it. Most of the time it read like satire to me, but most of the stuff written seriously in that vein back in the day reads like satire to Xers today. As I read it, I couldn't quite figure out whether the author meant to be funny or not.

Apparently I missed the poison-the-dog bit, though.

On 2002-08-08 06:29, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

On 2002-08-07 21:49, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

My favorite line from that book, the one that really sticks in my mind, is:

"A good citizen eats meat."

Oh my god! You paid particular attention to that part too? (Read the response I posted to a note just a few posts up.)

I did! When I saw your previous post, I couldn't figure out right away if I should respond to you or if you were responding to me!

On 2002-08-08 16:45, Marc Lamb wrote:




A Guide to Proper Behavior


R. Gregory '67 wrote:
"With tongue firmly in cheek, I offer up the following as further evidence that we are in a Fourth Turning..."

Knowing my interest in generations, My wife got my this little book as a Christmas gag gift. But this is not 4T thing, but rather a 3T thing. Much that is in this book was published in the 1920's.

There are many misconceptions about the 1920's here at this website. S&H probably staked too much attention on the revisionist version than was really necessary. Here's a prerecorded post where I tried to identify more of what the twenties were really all about:

<center>____________________________</center>
When one considers the importance of the decade ending year of 1929 for example, a decade S&H describe as:

<FONT SIZE="-1"><center>"Up until the fall of 1929, America still inhabited a decade then known as "an era of wonderful nonsense." Through the '20s, America felt increasingly wild, its daily life propelled ever faster by a stream of thrilling and innovative technologies, its government increasingly discredited and irrelevant, its culture hopelessly cleaved between the Prohibitionist "booboisie" and the jaded pleasure seekers, its public captivated by what Hemingway called a "movable feast" of celebrities and trifles."</FONT></center>

Well considering what came after, that image of the twenties was the one most noted by historians, including S&H. But Roderick Nash's Nervous Generation (1970), argues that this image only presents one side of a time he acknowledges as a troubled "nervous" America, but that we were, in the 1920s, "seeking a reaffirmation of old and familiar values," and that his study of that decade led him to conclude that America was desparately seeking a "heroic culture".

Well, seeing how a vast number of the GI generation (according to S&H) came of age from 1919 to 1929... this "hero cult" makes sense.

Indeed, author Susan Curtis in A Consuming Faith: The Social Gospel and Modern American Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), presents the case that in the twenties we were "a people confident and looking toward the future, with only the occasional backwards glance." This seems to me much different from the "booboisie" that S&H wish to latch on to, and one they need not dwell heavily upon to make their point.

Good post(s)!

I think, myself, that 3T is marked as much as anything by the fact that everyone is following their own path. Of all the Turnings, 3T is the one you can make the widest variety of contradictory descriptive statements about, and have them ALL be true.

The version S&H draw upon, and the version Mark points out, could both accurately describe both the last 3T and the current one, in fact!

"I was never quite sure how seriously to take it. Most of the time it read like satire to me, but most of the stuff written seriously in that vein back in the day reads like satire to Xers today. As I read it, I couldn't quite figure out whether the author meant to be funny or not."

Geez, take it seriously, folks! Good grief, what more proof does one need one how very far from regeneracy we are?

Buz Lightyear comes to mind. :lol:

Britney <s>sex</s> sez she "burned out" and wants to "quit".

It's evidence of a 4T, folks! No doubt about it now. :lol:

On 2002-08-08 16:06, Number Two wrote:

With a name like Azrael it *HAS* to be a 13er :smile:

"Azrael Abyss" was the name of a character on SNL in the late '90s, on the Sunshine State public access "Goth Talk" program. "Azrael Abyss" was played by Chris Kattan (sic?). A Millie was too young at the time to have been interested in Goth (and therefore wouldn't have named himself that on Amazon) and a Boomer would be too old. So that is why it is Xer.

On 2002-08-08 20:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

"I was never quite sure how seriously to take it. Most of the time it read like satire to me, but most of the stuff written seriously in that vein back in the day reads like satire to Xers today. As I read it, I couldn't quite figure out whether the author meant to be funny or not."

Geez, take it seriously, folks! Good grief, what more proof does one need one how very far from regeneracy we are?

Buz Lightyear comes to mind. :lol:

You sound vaguely approving of the book. I would think conservatives would hate the book.

Three examples we are still in the 3T-

The Osbournes
The Eminem Show (a new album)
The Anna Nicole Show

On 2002-08-09 06:31, Chis wrote:
Three examples we are still in the 3T-

The Osbournes
The Eminem Show (a new album)
The Anna Nicole Show

... or doing our best to be, at any rate.

I'm sure the entertainment industry is not looking forward to the 4T. They don't know how to "do" it - at least not yet. When you think about it, it's tough to identify anyone who would be a good 4T entertainer/actor/movie producer.

On 2002-08-08 21:44, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-08-08 16:06, Number Two wrote:

With a name like Azrael it *HAS* to be a 13er :smile:

"Azrael Abyss" was the name of a character on SNL in the late '90s, on the Sunshine State public access "Goth Talk" program. "Azrael Abyss" was played by Chris Kattan (sic?). A Millie was too young at the time to have been interested in Goth (and therefore wouldn't have named himself that on Amazon) and a Boomer would be too old. So that is why it is Xer.

Alternately, Azrael was Gargamel's cat on The Smurfs. Also likely an X'er reference. I'm not even aware of the character you cite.

On 2002-08-09 05:12, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

On 2002-08-08 20:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

"I was never quite sure how seriously to take it. Most of the time it read like satire to me, but most of the stuff written seriously in that vein back in the day reads like satire to Xers today. As I read it, I couldn't quite figure out whether the author meant to be funny or not."

Geez, take it seriously, folks! Good grief, what more proof does one need one how very far from regeneracy we are?

Buz Lightyear comes to mind. :lol:

You sound vaguely approving of the book. I would think conservatives would hate the book.

How do Democrats take it?

Oh yes, "It takes a village" with lot's of stained blue dresses. Afterall, everybody :razz: does it!

On 2002-08-09 06:44, David '47 wrote:

On 2002-08-09 06:31, Chis wrote:
Three examples we are still in the 3T-

The Osbournes
The Eminem Show (a new album)
The Anna Nicole Show

... or doing our best to be, at any rate.

I'm sure the entertainment industry is not looking forward to the 4T. They don't know how to "do" it - at least not yet. When you think about it, it's tough to identify anyone who would be a good 4T entertainer/actor/movie producer.

I agree with David. The entertainment industry, particularly music and television, seems to be attempting-- through sheer force of will-- to keep us in a Third Turning no matter what the cost. This is likely because 3T is the business environment that they know has worked in the past, and are therefore most comfortable with. Hence, you have this endless parade of short-lived "reality" tv shows, the declaration that "Pop Is Dead" and concomitant force-fed resurgence of rap and hard rock, and butt-cracks in primetime commercials.

Only in heroically-themed movies, from the late '90s Independence Day and Titanic, to today's Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings and Reign of Fire, do we see signs of a new era dawning.

For a good 4T producer, I offer M. Night Shmalayan.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-08-09 09:49 ]</font>

On 2002-08-09 05:12, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

On 2002-08-08 20:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

"I was never quite sure how seriously to take it. Most of the time it read like satire to me, but most of the stuff written seriously in that vein back in the day reads like satire to Xers today. As I read it, I couldn't quite figure out whether the author meant to be funny or not."

Geez, take it seriously, folks! Good grief, what more proof does one need one how very far from regeneracy we are?

Buz Lightyear comes to mind. :lol:

You sound vaguely approving of the book. I would think conservatives would hate the book.

Why?

Here's some evidence we are in a 3T; comparisons to the 1920's:

Henry Ford = Bill Gates

Car (Boosted Economy) = Personal Computer (Boosted Economy)

Ford Model T (Very Large Market Share) = Microsoft Windows (Very Large Market Share)

Al Capone = Osama bin Laden... in a way

Chicago Mafia = Al Qaeda... in a way

Scopes Monkey Trial = Pledge of Allegiance Case (in a sense reversed)

Immigrant Anarchist Movement = "Eurotrash" and WTO Protests

Airplane (Not new but popularized) = Internet (Not new but popularized)

Radio = Digital TV

Baggy Pants = Baggy Pants

Adults dressing like youth = Adults dressing like youth

Short Flapper Hair = Some young Gen X women have hair that is shorter than the average man's hair.

Flappers = All the girls who go to nightclubs and usually get drunk. Except this time they can have the booze out in the open.

Lowering Necklines on Dresses = Lowering Necklines on Dresses today as well

Teapot Dome = False Earnings Scandals

An Evangelist "Disappeared" and reappeared weeks later. It was found to be a publicity stunt = People pull publicity stunts all the time lately.

World War 1 = Gulf War (Both fought by Nomads, and were the most major wars in their turnings.

Prohibition = War On Drugs

Edward "Daddy" Browning had the hots for teenage girls = R. Kelly has the hots for teenage girls. Both had lots of money and gave tabloids a field day.

ALSO

"Daddy" (52) marrying Frances "Peaches" Heenan (15) = Very Old Billionare marrying Anna Nicole Smith. (The women were in it for the money, the men were in it for you know what)

Several early 1920's murder cases were billed as the "Trial of the Century". So was the O.J. Simpson Trial.

More Revealing Bathing Suits worn by Lost
Gen women = Thongs worn by Gen X women

Harding (had affairs and a scandal-ridden administration, but was still popular) = Clinton (Same)

I also think this is how it aligns:

Early 1920s = Late 1990s
Mid 1920s = Early 2000s
Late 1920s = Mid 2000s


_________________
2nd Wave Millennial
1987 Cohort
Class of 2005

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-08-09 13:24 ]</font>

Some signs that 1930 was still a 3T year.

• Miniature golf became hugely popular, with courses opening throughout the country.
• Culture wars raged over prohibition.
• Up through April, the stock market was rebounding nicely.
• People were most concerned about crime (remember Al Capone?) and prohibition, rather than jobs and unemployment.

That raises the question. When does the 3T end and the 4T begin? Even with Crises, the mood may return to "normal" after the Catalyst or at least trying to "be normal" but the die is in the cast.

Also, there has been a vigorous debate in "Civil War anomaly" on whether the trigger was Lincoln's election, John Brown's raid, Bleeding Kansas, or some earlier event.

Life isn't clean-cut is it, much as we Boomers would like it to be.

On 2002-08-09 14:21, The Wonk wrote:


Life isn't clean-cut is it, much as we Boomers would like it to be.

Remind me again, just when was this love of the clean-cut by Boomers? I thought we were always being taken to task for our ravelled threads, dishevelled locks and our spong.

I've tried saying this many times before, but I say again... The Crash of 1929 was NO BIG DEAL! <FONT SIZE="-15">The big deal was the New Deal--which the Crash precipitated-- and the FDR coalition that forged political power for two generations</FONT>.

We had crashes and depressions before and crashes since, but no coalition such as the one FDR hammered out. And since 1973/74 we have had total decoalition.

Actually, but of low probability, something as silly as a white spotted owl being found to be contaminated with peanut oil could be the next "spark of history", if it occurs at just the right moment. :smile:

On 2002-08-09 14:32, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-08-09 14:21, The Wonk wrote:


Life isn't clean-cut is it, much as we Boomers would like it to be.

Remind me again, just when was this love of the clean-cut by Boomers? I thought we were always being taken to task for our ravelled threads, dishevelled locks and our spong.

Yes, we're slobs, but we like things to be Black and White? Why do you think we're locked in culture wars? Why are Brian Rush, Eric Meece, Marc Lamb, and I always locking horns with each other? :grin: