Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The thrust of the film seems fairly clear, based on the promotions - how the irresponsibility of Boomers caused the financial crisis.

As for Bob butler's comments, it's the same old story. He sees the world as he wants to see it, not as it is, and then states those views as fact. Even as the foundations of his stated set of "key issues" collapse under his feet - as in the case of global warming - he's absolutely certain that "his side" is the side of "progress". Nevermind that everyone else in the country believes the "issues" are something completely different. He will still be saying the same things when it's all over and none of what he predicted (wanted) happened.

You should try to prepare yourself for the possibility that the "Tea Party" is in fact the beginning of the "regeneracy". It will soften the blow if that turns out to be the case. Unlike Mr. Butler, I'm not prepared to make that determination emphatically. But it is the first thing that has started to look like the real deal. And the fact that they've gotten tapped into S&H is perhaps a significant thing.

Well, I see the boomer bashing as part of JPT's broken record. I do see the unregulated debt ridden economy as a feature of the unravelling, something that must be addressed. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Silents, Boomers, and Xers alike wallowed in it. Yes, breaking out of the 'Read my lips' political meme where People want service but don't want to pay for it will be part of the crisis. Hopefully the Millenials might possibly have enough common sense to contribute. What are the minimal services required? How does one get enough people with common sense into government such that they pay for such services as they go along? Can we get rid of the idea that one can continue to cut taxes and depend on a free lunch?

I also do see the possibilities for some cross between the Tea Party and the Mad As Hell party. Washington needs a radical transformation. Some concise new set of values to get it into focus would sure help. Turning Theory might be part of it.

But the crisis won't end until the problems are solved.

Brian and I have provided similar summaries of the liberal's perspective on the key problems that push the need for transformation. Yes, we have been kind of broken record about it. I for one saw them quite some time ago and haven't seen a lot of need to adjust projects and priorities through the years.

As I did with the Libertarian thread back last summer, I'll repeat a call for an agenda from the opposition. If the 4T brings a transforming change to government, values, the economy and much else, what are the problems that are driving the transformation? How is it that the conservatives are advocating any sort of radical change? Frankly, I don't see it.

And while I respect the emotion and distrust of Washington that is behind the grass roots side of the Tea Party, Generation Zero seems to be driven by the establishment Republicans trying to preempt the Tea Party. The grass roots aspect of the Tea Party might possibly go somewhere, but not if it allows the conservative unraveling leadership to repackage and push their old agenda.

from Bob Butler

And while I respect the emotion and distrust of Washington that is behind the grass roots side of the Tea Party, Generation Zero seems to be driven by the establishment Republicans trying to preempt the Tea Party. The grass roots aspect of the Tea Party might possibly go somewhere, but not if it allows the conservative unraveling leadership to repackage and push their old agenda.

In 1941, the great film director Frank Capra made a tremendous film about populism called MEET JOHN DOE. If anyone here has not seen it I would suggest a real treat is in store for you. There is one scene where the average folks who have formed John Doe Clubs to fight for a better America, come to City Hall to see the hero of their movement - John Doe. The mayor wants to co-opt Doe and his movement for his own purposes as do even far more powerful persons.

When the group talks about their club, the mayor tries to jump in and claim them as his own:


Mayor Hawkins: Why, Bert. I feel slighted. I'd like to join, but nobody asked me.
Sourpuss Smithers: I'm sorry, Mayor, but we voted that no politician could join.
Mrs. Hansen: Just the John Does of the neighborhood because you know how politicians are.

Later in the film we find out that the man behind the clubs is actually something of a wannabe fascist who will use the movement to bring a strong hand to the land and install himself in the White House.

That is exactly the position the Tea Party finds itself in today. Michael Steele and the GOP establishment see the Tea party movement as a real opportunity to recraft their failing brand and return to power in Congress. Of course they welcome all the new bodies and the votes they bring with them. But they simply want to co-opt them, use them like toilet tissue and them discard them after they have served their purpose. The result will be even more angry people sometime down the road if they do not just say "screw the whole thing" and slink away back to their lives.

The Tea Party will die unless it stays independent. It could be a force for a third party but that window of opportunity is being closed for them by the republicans.

I saw the documentary and want to see the movie. I find it very hard to believe that the movie's theme is "It was all the fault of Those Dirty Democrats!" And if I'd come to it cold, I'd have had a lot of trouble understanding how the Boomers being spoiled (not all of them, as a core Boomer friend who was born poor and rural points out) resulted in Those Dirty Democrats causing our current problems. Or in making sense of that last remark about a Fourth Turning... I know what it is, but would the innocent viewer? A bit of continuity problems here?

Of course in one hour, most of it taken up with Other Party Bashing, it's hard to get things right. Though it's intriguing to know that The Other Side objects to many of the same things I do! Such as our government being run by Wesley Mouch and Orren Boyle --- which it has been for quite some time.

I will have to pass on the tea cakes and lemon slices, though; tea parties are really not my thing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> What software do you use to post? You're the only poster whose
> text is llimited to 80 characters per line. Is it News Reader of
> some sort?

David, I just copy and paste into the FTF user interface. I use an
ascii editor (emacs) that can format text lines into 80 chars per
line, but you can get exactly the same effect by typing into
the user interface and hitting "Enter" wherever you want a line
to end.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

> >>> The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily
> >>> promoted by the conservatives.

> Why is this?

Matt, A couple of people have asked me questions of this type. I'll
think about it and post something on my web log.

John

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

That is exactly the position the Tea Party finds itself in today. Michael Steele and the GOP establishment see the Tea party movement as a real opportunity to recraft their failing brand and return to power in Congress. Of course they welcome all the new bodies and the votes they bring with them. But they simply want to co-opt them, use them like toilet tissue and them discard them after they have served their purpose. The result will be even more angry people sometime down the road if they do not just say "screw the whole thing" and slink away back to their lives.

The Tea Party will die unless it stays independent. It could be a force for a third party but that window of opportunity is being closed for them by the republicans.

I'm with you. They need a strong personality who really is mad at Washington, who really does want to tear down all that is wrong, a real John Doe or Joe the Plumber. What they've got is Sarah Palin and a bunch of Washington insiders trying to pull strings.

Obama and the Democrats used turning theory more effectively and more soundly than the Republicans. The theme of Change and addressing problems is far more true to the theory than boomer bashing. The Theory proposes that all generations have strengths and weaknesses, that the transformations of 4Ts come from an alignment of the strengths of several generations. If what is being said here proves true, what the Republican Washington establishment is trying is something quite different. My least favorite aspect of turning theory is the ability to form a new derogatory stereotype and use it to promote division and hate. Hatred or fear of the boomers might be used as the core of a next generation variant on the Southern Strategy, as Nixon used the blacks and Hitler used the jews. This will resonate with some conservatives. JPT has been boomer bashing for quite a while. It does fit the recent conservative and Republican style.

But that doesn't seem to be a good foundation to build the next conservative party on. What will their slogan be? Don't trust anyone over 50? Will the millennials really buy it? Are there not enough boomers left for a huge potential backlash?

But the Republicans need a new message. They have to try something.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Very good point. Bought many members of Congress a copy of Generations I think.

Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, I can see where Gore's involvement could have been a liability. With global warming under fire, he might not exactly appeal to the crowds that are giving the film a look. By the way, does anybody know how to view the entire show last night? Foxnews.com only shows the first two segments.

Sweet! Just noticed it's on Youtube.

The two people I suggested to Bannen were Camille Paglia and Paul Krugman, and he tried to get them both without success. I am not sure that they could have gotten Gore to appear.

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at having been part of Dave Krein's introduction to the pathetic Sean Hannity, whom I cannot stand even to listen to, much less watch, for more than a couple of minutes at a time. But believe me, David, there are dumber folk than him on Fox News. My wife, who is well to my Left, made the supreme sacrifice to watch it.

The trailer makes it clear that the film will explain the turnings. I sure HOPE that the movie itself has one of its few liberals to balance Gingrich on the choice before us for the future. I can't remember if I said anything that would fill in that gap or not. I have to believe Glass-Steagall will be mentioned. It drove me crazy, of course, that while the three of them were rhapsodizing about the glorious 1950s, no one said, "Oh, you mean you want to go back to 91% marginal income tax rates?"

Brian R, your faith is touching.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I sure HOPE that the movie itself has one of its few liberals to balance Gingrich on the choice before us for the future. I can't remember if I said anything that would fill in that gap or not.

I would assume that Newt and the Tea Partiers would suggest spending cuts wherever possible, (and for some of the Tea Partiers, maybe even in the military) while investing heavily in the industrial base. What would be your take, David?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587349,00.html

I feel slimy for posting this link (dislike fox news and everything it stands for, despite actually agreeing with conservatives on some issues), but here's the transcript.

I have to view the film as a net positive, because it gets people talking about some of the stuff that is important to the crisis. How many times do you hear about de-industrialization on Sean Hannity? If nothing else, even if there will be disagreement on the solutions involved, it helps to have some kind of common understanding that there is a problem in these areas.

If this type of stuff gets the right admitting that these types of things are problems, then that's a net positive in my opinion.

Glenn Beck is talking about the Kondratiev Wave as I type this, describing it in terms of economic "seasons" -- winter, spring, summer, fall. The "winter", according to Beck, is the "window of opportunity" for progressives, fascists, socialists, etc. to overturn the system and impose dictatorship. These notions have obviously caught on among Tea Partiers, conservatives, libertarians, whatever you want to call them.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

MJ: I recommend Glenn Beck not because of the man or the POV, but the discussions are important IMO. In fact, he's discussing a "seasonal" aspect to Economics as we speak. The cool thing is that you can watch the programs, and no one else needs to know!(LOL) PoC67
PS: I'm a Conservative DESPITE Hannity; He's pretty much a Jack-ass IMO; Like Olbermann.

Beat me to it. Hannity is not the brightest bulb, but he's a decent guy IMO. And as I said previously, he is clearly a (1961) Boomer.

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

I would assume that Newt and the Tea Partiers would suggest spending cuts wherever possible, (and for some of the Tea Partiers, maybe even in the military) while investing heavily in the industrial base. What would be your take, David?

I was referring to a clip Hannity used, in which Newt said we can choose between becoming like France (oh, the Horror! the Horror!), or else "unleashing our energies again," or some bs like that. My voice was either just before or just after--I think before--saying the shape of the new order was up to us (Boomers) and the younger generations. I could have laid out a different choice for him.

What was a bit odd last night was all the nostalgia for the 1950s without any attention to how we got there, that is, the 1930s and 1940s.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

What was a bit odd last night was all the nostalgia for the 1950s without any attention to how we got there, that is, the 1930s and 1940s.

I assume you are talking about Hannity, himself. The show did bring in how June Cleaver got to be who she was. What specifically, though, is the alternative to Newt's thoughts on our choices for the future?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I was referring to a clip Hannity used, in which Newt said we can choose between becoming like France (oh, the Horror! the Horror!), or else "unleashing our energies again," or some bs like that. My voice was either just before or just after--I think before--saying the shape of the new order was up to us (Boomers) and the younger generations. I could have laid out a different choice for him.

What was a bit odd last night was all the nostalgia for the 1950s without any attention to how we got there, that is, the 1930s and 1940s.

Were you asleep for the part where they explained that the housewives of the 1950s (June Clever, Donna Reed, etc.) had lived through the poverty of the GD & saw what WWII did to their brothers, fathers, uncles, and husbands; and that didn't want their children growing up through it?

Granted, it wasn't really dwelt upon that much, but it was mentioned as a contributing factor.

What bothered me was the whole "blame only the Democrats" atmosphere. However I will say that the director seemed to go "hey, I'm not letting the Republicans off the hook either". I do like the fact that the director got to the root of what I think the problem is: Incumbents.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

What bothered me was the whole "blame only the Democrats" atmosphere. However I will say that the director seemed to go "hey, I'm not letting the Republicans off the hook either". I do like the fact that the director got to the root of what I think the problem is: Incumbents.

From Hannity's perspective, of course, the GOP has always taken the fall for being the party of the rich. I think his issue with the Dems is that they were in cahoots with the fat cats on Wall Street despite their rhetoric. I think the Tea Party members dislike anyone who is bought and paid for by these corporations.

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

From Hannity's perspective, of course, the GOP has always taken the fall for being the party of the rich. I think his issue with the Dems is that they were in cahoots with the fat cats on Wall Street despite their rhetoric. I think the Tea Party members dislike anyone who is bought and paid for by these corporations.

It is not free enterprise that they have an issue with - it is the bailouts, which are a contravention of free enterprise, a consolidation of government power, and an outright theft from the people by the elite.

I didn't realize this cast member had his own show. This clip shows scenes in the background that were not on the Hannity show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Ko03EJhQk/

Here's another link:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/40208...ylist_id=87066

The most interesting thing about this clip is the revelation that there will be a sequel. This first film will present the problem, while the next one will present proposed solutions.

So long as they cut it off at the Sputnik launch (birth-cohort-wise), I'm all for it.

And that reminds me of an encounter I had with one of the Larouchies in downtown San Francisco around 1999 or so: They had something on their table blasting the Boomers - yet the dude in charge of the display was extremely receptive to my assertion that those around 40 years old at that time were not Boomers. If I'm not mistaken, I even gave him a copy of the current draft - such as it was as of then - of my "Debunking The Baby Boom Myth" essay, and he appeared to be most impressed with it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Were you asleep for the part where they explained that the housewives of the 1950s (June Clever, Donna Reed, etc.) had lived through the poverty of the GD & saw what WWII did to their brothers, fathers, uncles, and husbands; and that didn't want their children growing up through it?

Granted, it wasn't really dwelt upon that much, but it was mentioned as a contributing factor.

What bothered me was the whole "blame only the Democrats" atmosphere. However I will say that the director seemed to go "hey, I'm not letting the Republicans off the hook either". I do like the fact that the director got to the root of what I think the problem is: Incumbents.

~Chas'88

They did it from a purely personal angle. They didn't say a word about the New Deal, the GI Bill, 90% marginal tax rates, public power projects, the National Labor Relations Board, the SEC, the Glass-Steagall Act, or any of the government initiatives that made that world possible. That's what made me angry. Nor of course did they mention the millions of Republicans who screamed "Socialism, Socialism!" while all that was going on.

To answer the other question, I'd be delighted for us to become more like France.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

They did it from a purely personal angle. They didn't say a word about the New Deal, the GI Bill, 90% marginal tax rates, public power projects, the National Labor Relations Board, the SEC, the Glass-Steagall Act, or any of the government initiatives that made that world possible.

Of course not. You can't have a culture of stable families without an undergirding support system. In the 1800's when it was possible for 2/3rds of the population to live by farming the Northwest Ordainece and later the Homestead Act provided the safety net. In the 1950's the items you mentioned above worked.

As I see it, the twofold reason for bringing what we call the American high 1T up in the promo was to try to capture the yearning for an America that seems to work better and harness that yearning for the ends of movement conservatism.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To answer the other question, I'd be delighted for us to become more like France.

The issue, as presented, is that this country and others will be forced to deal with extreme debt. Does becoming like France mean that we will be invaded by a foreign country, the good guys will come rescue us (and our debt will go away)?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To answer the other question, I'd be delighted for us to become more like France.

So you like France, that always goes on strike every other month and where nothing gets done because everyone's always on strike. Okay, glad we've cleared that up.

~Chas'88

The Hannity special is being replayed right now for anybody who didn't catch it.