On 2002-05-16 15:58, Ty Webb wrote:
Studio 54 is a good barometer of the end of the Awakening, because that drugs, sex, disco thing was bumping well into the 80s. But by 1982-83 it had just burned out.

http://www.geocities.com/drakkar91/studio54.html
Notice the year that Studio 54 closes... nineteen eighty SIX; suggesting that even tho the main Awakening had "just burned out" there were still some traces of awakening left into the mid eighties.

Well lil dude, that's not how I remember the 1980s. Ed Koch's city looked more like Gotham in Batman than anything at the time.
Tell you what, if I quiz any Baby Boomer alive right now, and ask them if 1985 seemed to be part of the "awakening" of the post JFK years, I wonder what they would say.

On 2002-05-16 16:08, Ty Webb wrote:
Well lil dude, that's not how I remember the 1980s. Ed Koch's city looked more like Gotham in Batman than anything at the time.
Tell you what, if I quiz any Baby Boomer alive right now, and ask them if 1985 seemed to be part of the "awakening" of the post JFK years, I wonder what they would say.

Then ask those same Baby Boomers if 1985 seems to be part of the "unravelling" around the Clinton years... I think that all those 80s nostalgia websites will give an answer on both fronts

Ask them if 1967 was like 1977.
I don't get your point.

Clinton and Reagan were very similar. Both a dramatic swing to the right after two decades of left. What was conservative in the 60s and 70s decisively swung into liberal land after 1984.
Maybe this is the wrong column.

On 2002-05-16 17:26, Ty Webb wrote:
Ask them if 1967 was like 1977.
I don't get your point.

my point is that the eighties are nothing like the nineties as well as nothing like the seventies... they're generally considered to be their own thing outside of S&H

On 2002-05-16 17:27, Ty Webb wrote:
Clinton and Reagan were very similar. Both a dramatic swing to the right after two decades of left. What was conservative in the 60s and 70s decisively swung into liberal land after 1984.
Maybe this is the wrong column.

For some reason I just don't see the two as all that similar... OTOH here's a brief analysis of the presidents from 72 on
Years Prez Lib/Cons Perceived as...
72-74 Nixon Conservative Conservative
74-76 Ford Moderate Conservative
77-80 Carter Liberal Liberal
81-88 Reagan Conservative Conservative
89-92 Bush Conservative Moderate
Conservative
93-00 Clinton Moderate Liberal Liberal

Up until Ford, presidents are perceived as MORE conservative as they are; Carter and Reagan are perceived as AS conservative and Bush and Clinton are perceived as more liberal (the shift in public attitude can be measured more by how the public views each president than the politics of the presidents themselves) - so therefore I'd say that in the 90s the public is more conservative than the 80s (which is more so than the 70s); if Reagan were to run again he'd win in a landslide (as much as we'd hate to admit it) because after the transition period of the 80s, the nineties were more conservative despite having a popular president to the left of Reagan/Bush; this also suggests that the 80s serve primarily as a transition between the 70s and 90s (with a character of its own that is especially prominent in the mid 80s when the awakening vibe is mostly gone but the unraveling vibe hasn't really started yet)

What do you know about the mid-80s that you didnt read in a history book?
Despite the way they appear LBJ and Tricky Dick were both fairly liberal domestically. It seems odd, but more "liberal" minded than Billy Boy, who followed in the footsteps of reagan when it came to the private sector.
He was just as big a corporate whore if not more. Just because of all of this gays in the military, abortion side issues the central economic ideals are the same. Think of the merger mania. No FDR disciple would do something like that.
Thats the mark of a neo-liberal American presidency.

On 2002-05-16 21:44, Ty Webb wrote:
What do you know about the mid-80s that you didnt read in a history book?
Despite the way they appear LBJ and Tricky Dick were both fairly liberal domestically. It seems odd, but more "liberal" minded than Billy Boy, who followed in the footsteps of reagan when it came to the private sector.
He was just as big a corporate whore if not more. Just because of all of this gays in the military, abortion side issues the central economic ideals are the same. Think of the merger mania. No FDR disciple would do something like that.
Thats the mark of a neo-liberal American presidency.

yeah... i now know much more about YOUR politics than I did before reading this post - you care more about the "central" economic issues than the personal "side issues" (i actually care more about the personal issues... enough that I would almost be libertarian - and actually was until i heard of the Greens!) - I agree with you on LBJ but I doubt that Nixon was "liberal" domestically by any standards
And I actually have a few token memories of 87 (and more of 88; even more of 89) - which of those years would be considered "mid 80s" in your book? (i'd say 87 would but 88 would not) and it is those token memories that (according to S&H at least; i don't really believe that part) delineate generations!

Well I have to hand it to you.
Your new generation has a completely different way of looking at time. 1997 was the year you woke up, 1997 was the year I said "Jesus, it's 1997? Im old"
You see 1987 as like it was a long time ago, and put in this weird historical context that I never saw when I was an 8 year old riding by bike around causing havoc and rolling port-o-sans down hills and crushing on Debbie Gibson.
Really the 80s werent that different from the 90s, at least to me. I think the 90s were just disappointing since the post 1984 period sucked so much.
I missed the community spirit of the earlier 80s and all the hippy dippy be friends arts and crafts love the Earth crap. The "greed is good" thing i was into but i found debasing of ones soul in hindsight.
As for 1987, Didnt space Balls come out then?
Now that was 3T :smile:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ty Webb on 2002-05-16 22:58 ]</font>

That was the first year i actually know where I was on New Years Eve 1986-87..pretty sweet.

On 2002-05-16 22:23, mmailliw wrote:

I agree with you on LBJ but I doubt that Nixon was "liberal" domestically by any standards

Price supports. Wage and price controls. Revenue sharing. Nixon was a "liberal" domestically. He certainly was not an ideological liberal. I think it was more that foreign policy commanded all his attention (his sole fascination) and he really would have preferred to have someone else deal with what he probably considered to be the "pain in the ass" domestic stuff. Overall, just call Nixon a moderate. But he sho' wasn't no conservative.

On 2002-05-16 22:57, Ty Webb wrote:
Well I have to hand it to you.
Your new generation has a completely different way of looking at time. 1997 was the year you woke up, 1997 was the year I said "Jesus, it's 1997? Im old"

You seem to think that everyone born from 1981 or 1982 to 1998 or 2000 looks at time the same way I do; I REALLY wish that was the case but I doubt it is - whatever exactly does "wake up" mean in that context? I'd probably place it in 96 if I had to choose a year...

You see 1987 as like it was a long time ago, and put in this weird historical context that I never saw when I was an 8 year old riding by bike around causing havoc and rolling port-o-sans down hills and crushing on Debbie Gibson.

I can imagine a 1974 cohort telling you the exact same thing about 1981 or 1982

Really the 80s werent that different from the 90s, at least to me. I think the 90s were just disappointing since the post 1984 period sucked so much.

Do a net search for 80s nostalgia sites, etc and you'll see a lot of people who disagree with you about that decade

I missed the community spirit of the earlier 80s and all the hippy dippy be friends arts and crafts love the Earth crap. The "greed is good" thing i was into but i found debasing of ones soul in hindsight.
As for 1987, Didnt space Balls come out then?
Now that was 3T :smile:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ty Webb on 2002-05-16 22:58 ]</font>

yeah... that doesn't seem all THAT 3T to me tho
(and btw the first New Year I remember was actually 87-88; 88-89 I remember my parents not waking me up for it and 89-90 I remember being in California)

I don't think one can get an impression of a decade from the perspective of an 8 yr old. Justin's (b 1979) experience of 1987 would be like my experience of the 1967 riots. I remember my Dad getting out a hose to use in case the rioters came to our block (they didn't) but otherwise it didn't really affect me. The campus unrest did have an impact, but not what you would think.

Back around 1970 we played a game called "cops and rioters". We'd get about 15 kids (all late Boomers) and split them up into 4-5 cops and the rest rioters. The cops would wear real cop hats that one of the kids (whose Dad was a cop) supplied. They would wield rolled up newspapers as batons. The rioters would sit in a driveway, lock arms together and chant "US out of Vietnam" or something like that. The cops would come up and say move along--break it up. Then the rioters would say something like "no way pig", and then the cops would start beating the rioters with their clubs and the whole thing would devolve into fake fighting. It was great fun, but I usually got stuck being a cop (most people wanted to be rioters). The next "generation" of kids on our block (these would be early Xers) no longer played cops and rioters.

Anybody here ever play a game like this?

We used to yell "Rodney King" somebody, like "Rodney King Jeremy!!!" and then Jeremy would get the shit kicked out of him by everybody.
In fact we used to play a game called "war" where we honestly would just beat the shit out of everybody. In fact "war" was banned from the playground so we'd meet after school at someones house to play this game.
The younger kids thought we were just retarded, especially when they became the victim of attack.
I remember a "meeting" with the teachers where they told us to stop and we said that they only cared because "they were liable."

We were such little shits.

Ty.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ty Webb on 2002-05-19 16:23 ]</font>

On 2002-05-16 23:35, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-16 22:23, mmailliw wrote:

I agree with you on LBJ but I doubt that Nixon was "liberal" domestically by any standards

Price supports. Wage and price controls. Revenue sharing. Nixon was a "liberal" domestically. He certainly was not an ideological liberal. I think it was more that foreign policy commanded all his attention (his sole fascination) and he really would have preferred to have someone else deal with what he probably considered to be the "pain in the ass" domestic stuff. Overall, just call Nixon a moderate. But he sho' wasn't no conservative.

I've got some more to add to the list of liberal Nixon programs:

• national Food Stamp Program
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Negative Income Tax (was almost enacted)

A few years ago, I read a book, I think called "One of Us" about Richard Nixon. He was certainly a social conservative; he fought tooth and nail against many of the Awakening ideas. However, he shared the standard GI faith in Government programs. He certainly never pushed tax cuts or smaller government, ideals of today's conservative movement.

One thing the book mentions is Nixon's disagreement with President Eisenhower about whether the government should intervene in the 1959 recession. Eisenhower wanted a more laid-back laisse faire approach; Nixon wanted to attack it with stimuli. Eisenhower's view prevailed and Nixon blamed Eisenhower's failure to act for his 1960 defeat to JFK.

In short, Nixon was economically liberal, socially conservative. Like Michael Lind's National Liberalism ideal, perhaps?

On 2002-05-16 16:03, mmailliw wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/drakkar91/studio54.html
Notice the year that Studio 54 closes... nineteen eighty SIX; suggesting that even tho the main Awakening had "just burned out" there were still some traces of awakening left into the mid eighties.

Ah, but Disco died in 1979. The Village People movie which the industry had planned on being a big hit in 1980 fizzled out and Disco was offically declared DEAD. By the time of my HS graduation in 1980, Disco was just a bad hangover from the receeding 70's glitz.

Will

On 2002-05-17 20:32, Xer of Evil wrote:

Uh, no, and I never "Rodney Kinged" anyone either.

However, in grade school I remember using the phrase "hell no we won't go" all over the place, having no idea what it really meant.

XoE

Funny. When I was a pre-schooler in the mid-60's, I used to play with the neighbor girl. Her parents had just recently divorced so we played a form of house where we got married and divorced all the time. My mom would ask me each day so "are you married or divorced today". Of course, we would then give her the story for the day.

When I was older, the game was either cops and robbers or cowboys or indians. There was a book I once read by Edward G Love who wrote about his play days in the middle of WWI and they played soldiers. I guess each generation has its own spin on that game. :smile:

Will

When I was an early teenager in the mid 70s, we played a game which was a modified form of hide-and-seek but could more accurately be described as Behind Enemy Lines. We called it, quite simply, "The Game".

In The Game, we would have anywhere from 8-12 kids or so, and we'd split up into two teams. One team -- the pursuers-- would hide their eyes while the other -- the pursued-- had approximately 5 minutes or so to disperse themselves throughout the neighborhood. The name of the game was for the pursued to avoid capture for as long as possible and by any means necessary. With regard to hiding places, they were limited to the "boundaries" of the neighborhood but within such no place was off-limits except inside our homes (or anyone else's).

We had one friend who played with us that was crazy, in a Mel Gibson/Lethal Weapon sort of way-- so much so that he was almost NEVER "captured". He would hide in places where no sane person would-- for example, he made friends with the vicious German Shepherd who lived at the end of the block, and hid in his back yard. Another time he actually hid under the eaves of the highest-pitched roof in the neighborhood-- we finally spotted him there, but absolutely no fu#$%ng way was anyone going to climb up after him, so again he "won" ....... Last time anyone heard from this guy, he'd become a Navy Seal. No surprises there, frankly :smile:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-05-17 23:29 ]</font>

On 2002-05-17 09:51, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-05-16 23:35, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-16 22:23, mmailliw wrote:

I agree with you on LBJ but I doubt that Nixon was "liberal" domestically by any standards

Price supports. Wage and price controls. Revenue sharing. Nixon was a "liberal" domestically. He certainly was not an ideological liberal. I think it was more that foreign policy commanded all his attention (his sole fascination) and he really would have preferred to have someone else deal with what he probably considered to be the "pain in the ass" domestic stuff. Overall, just call Nixon a moderate. But he sho' wasn't no conservative.

I've got some more to add to the list of liberal Nixon programs:

• national Food Stamp Program
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Negative Income Tax (was almost enacted)

A few years ago, I read a book, I think called "One of Us" about Richard Nixon. He was certainly a social conservative; he fought tooth and nail against many of the Awakening ideas. However, he shared the standard GI faith in Government programs. He certainly never pushed tax cuts or smaller government, ideals of today's conservative movement.

One thing the book mentions is Nixon's disagreement with President Eisenhower about whether the government should intervene in the 1959 recession. Eisenhower wanted a more laid-back laisse faire approach; Nixon wanted to attack it with stimuli. Eisenhower's view prevailed and Nixon blamed Eisenhower's failure to act for his 1960 defeat to JFK.

In short, Nixon was economically liberal, socially conservative. Like Michael Lind's National Liberalism ideal, perhaps?

All right, all right, he was an authoritarian (fascist?)

On 2002-05-11 23:37, mmailliw wrote:

Somehow I've never been convinced that you were Craig (even though you keep talking about it). The Jarvard bit just doesn't seem to flow. But I think that the fact that your first post mentioned Craig '84 made it sound less likely that you were Craig. Sometimes Justin '79 would start out by referring to Justin when he made a new character, and it took a while for me to figure out he was really a different deal.

I wouldn't confuse you with Justin though or you with Justin. If you claim in your next incarnation to be born in 1984, I'll assume it's you (or Craig. Or someone entirely new here). If it were Justin, he'd say he was born in 1979. And plus I can tell by the attitude towards 1981 or 1984 cohorts. If all this new poster does is whine about how different 1984 cohorts are because they don't remember late seventies TV shows, my Justin alarm is probably going to start going off.

By the way, happy birthday.

thx... but I guess you didn't remember Landau because you joined after he had pretty much disappeared (I read much of his YR stuff and was impressed) - I've never seen a photo, etc of Craig tho so the two could still be the same person (Landau, who wanted to get 84 into Generation X, could pose as an Xish 84 cohort instead to show what 84 cohorts are like)
and about the photo, would you have preferred to see the one that went on http://www.bangable.com ?

I actually remember James Landau and saw his posts from the earlier days. I guess if I were to suspect I were seeing James Landau in disguise, it would be from reading posts born from someone in 1979 that took a welcoming position in regards to people born in 1984 or so, saying that they're in his own generation and he can't see any difference between them. In that sense he DOES sound a lot like Craig and you. And you both share the same views about laws and policies instituted against teens, but that's not at all distinctive especially with your (our) birthyear range. I might describe Landau as the anti-Justin; the mirror side of the 1979 birthyear's views. I never imagined you guys as being James Landau though. Your writing styles are all so very different, and of course I've seen you speak/reply to him in the third person. Justin, though...a definite Justin vibe comes through sooner or later. Ty's first posts sounded like God was a different person and he disagreed with some of God's ideas...and yet it wasn't long before he announced he was born in 1979, and before you knew it, he was sounding just like Justin'79. Now I'm wondering whether to become immediately suspicious whenever a newcomer says he was born in 1979.

I said "I hope so, we might have to all go vote this time".. (I think I was the only one of my friends who voted in the last election)

I said to the freshmen "Did you vote last time?"

Both of them had voted in 2000!!!!...aww a civic generation in the works :smile:

Seems these two frosh aren't representative of their generation. That article that came up about the college students responding to 2000 said the percentage of 18-to-24-year-olds registered to vote had gone down for the second time they counted...and not many Xers (or whatever they were) were registered to vote in 1998. You know how low Generation X has been...

By the way, what month and year were each of these fresh students born?

On 2002-05-14 15:04, Mark Y wrote:
Now, what makes 1909 so special for the Mature boundary? I've seen that before.

I don't know...1912 was people who were under 90 in 2001. Maybe 1909 came from 1998, when all of these 1909 people were under 90. I guess they decided too many of them have died off in order to keep these people on the charts. As a result, "There are only four generations alive today, born starting 1912..." What do you suppose nonagenarians are going to buy if they can't be marketed too? It seems as if according to these people, people like Simon Wiesenthal (b. 1908), Estee Lauder (b. 1908), Albert Hofmann (b. 1906), Max Schmeling (b. 1905), Bob Hope (b. 1903), Brooke Astor (b. 1902), Arnold O. Beckman (b. 1900), and Madame Chiang Kai-Shek (b. 1897) do not exist.

On 2002-05-18 23:07, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

I actually remember James Landau and saw his posts from the earlier days. I guess if I were to suspect I were seeing James Landau in disguise, it would be from reading posts born from someone in 1979 that took a welcoming position in regards to people born in 1984 or so, saying that they're in his own generation and he can't see any difference between them. In that sense he DOES sound a lot like Craig and you. And you both share the same views about laws and policies instituted against teens, but that's not at all distinctive especially with your (our) birthyear range. I might describe Landau as the anti-Justin; the mirror side of the 1979 birthyear's views. I never imagined you guys as being James Landau though. Your writing styles are all so very different, and of course I've seen you speak/reply to him in the third person. Justin, though...a definite Justin vibe comes through sooner or later. Ty's first posts sounded like God was a different person and he disagreed with some of God's ideas...and yet it wasn't long before he announced he was born in 1979, and before you knew it, he was sounding just like Justin'79. Now I'm wondering whether to become immediately suspicious whenever a newcomer says he was born in 1979.

I remember James' posts. As I recall, they seemed Millennialish. Does anyone know what REALLY happened to ames? There was a rumor for a while that he was hit by a bus and became comatose and never came out of it. I think it was some sort of joke though.