"The Beatles Really Ruined America..."
William J. Holland
I was having a discussion/debate about the Beatles with a co-worker
the other day. In answer to a question, I had listed my reasons for my
devotion to the Beatles. When I was finished, he laid this one on me.
The gist of his statement was that he blamed the Beatles for a lot of
the problems that have plagued America for the past twenty years. He
claimed that the Beatles, while of course not inventing marijuana,
acid or other illegal drugs, certainly influenced thousands of young
minds towards drug use by their own experimentations, thereby playing
a role in the deaths of thousands of kids in the sixties and helping
to create a national drug problem that still rages today.
He also argued that by the rebellious image the Beatles created for
themselves, they helped to influence a generation of kids (and those
that came after) towards disrespect and civil disobedience. He pointed
out that the kids that came before the Beatles were by and large far
different than the kids that followed and came after the Beatles. The
"before" group respected their elders, followed the rules of society
and didn't cause much trouble. The "after" kids challenged authority
(protests, marches, etc.) thumbed their collective noses at society
(drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the majority
of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only disrespected
their elders, but have come to the point that they don't even respect
each other, killing each other over trivial things like sneakers.
By the end of the discussion, his basic premise was that every major
problem today can be traced back to the Beatles, like drug abuse
(which of course spawned the drug cartels and increased violent crime,
not to mention theft related crimes as addicts struggled to find money
to pay for their habbits) aids (as a byproduct of the sexual
revolution...."all you need is love", right??) as well as the "in your
face" feeling that many Americans seem to foster....
While I admit to being uncomfortable by the deaths of all the
teen-agers back in the sixties due to drug use, I think his arguments
have some really large weaknesses. I thought it might be interesting
to hear what my fellow RMB'ers think about my co-worker's comments,
and how they would have responded to them....
Cool Cat
ummm...
Let me think here.
The Beatles in responsible for today's problems? Hahahahahahahahahaha!
I am 16 years old, so I missed being influenced by the Beatles by like 30
years.
Well, maybe I didn't. i think that their music influences me every day.
However, none of it is in a negative way.
I don't see how your co-worker could think that the Beatles caused such
chaos. Has he ever listened to the Beatles? Did he pay attention to what
else was going on in the 60's?
The Beatles weren't the only ones using drugs. They didn't go out and tell
people to sleep around. ( Granted that that did happen in the 60's, but it
most certainly was not caused by listening to Help or Strawberry Fields.)
I'd have to say that the only harm that anybody caused after listening to
the Beatles was old Charlie Manson. Manson was about as nutty as an Almond
Joy. So, he doesn't even count.
The Beatles weren't the 60's. They just made music during the time that
moved a lot of people.
If the co-worker thinks a band is responsible for the world's problems,
than we are some pretty easily swayed people.
William J. Holland <hol29...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
Fred Povey
In article <657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>, hol29...@mindspring.com wrote:
> [snip]
> By the end of the discussion, his basic premise was that every major
> problem today can be traced back to the Beatles, like drug abuse
> (which of course spawned the drug cartels and increased violent crime,
> not to mention theft related crimes as addicts struggled to find money
> to pay for their habbits) aids (as a byproduct of the sexual
> revolution...."all you need is love", right??) as well as the "in your
> face" feeling that many Americans seem to foster....
>
> While I admit to being uncomfortable by the deaths of all the
> teen-agers back in the sixties due to drug use, I think his arguments
> have some really large weaknesses. I thought it might be interesting
> to hear what my fellow RMB'ers think about my co-worker's comments,
> and how they would have responded to them....
"Every major problem today" has also been traced to computers, MTV, disco,
the pill, Elvis Presley, James Dean, Frank Sinatra, Ingrid Bergman, Bing
Crosby, talking pictures, horseless carriages, American independence and
lots of other things. A lot of people in every generation think that theirs
is the last generation of decent people and that something currently
popular among younger people is going to send the world down the tubes. A
decade from now it'll be something else causing the problems of the world.
Gives people something to talk about, anyway.
R Lapworth
The message <fpovey-ya0230800...@news.erols.com>
from fpo...@erols.com (Fred Povey) contains these words:
Personally, I blame the Stones.
Ron
_____________________________________________________________
Snow Piece No. 2
Watch snow fall until it covers thirty-three buildings. y.o.
_____________________________________________________________
Chris Dashiell
William J. Holland <hol29...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
> I was having a discussion/debate about the Beatles with a co-worker
> the other day. In answer to a question, I had listed my reasons for my
> devotion to the Beatles. When I was finished, he laid this one on me.
>
> The gist of his statement was that he blamed the Beatles for a lot of
> the problems that have plagued America for the past twenty years. He
> claimed that the Beatles, while of course not inventing marijuana,
> acid or other illegal drugs, certainly influenced thousands of young
> minds towards drug use by their own experimentations, thereby playing
> a role in the deaths of thousands of kids in the sixties and helping
> to create a national drug problem that still rages today.
>
> He also argued that by the rebellious image the Beatles created for
> themselves, they helped to influence a generation of kids (and those
> that came after) towards disrespect and civil disobedience. He pointed
> out that the kids that came before the Beatles were by and large far
> different than the kids that followed and came after the Beatles. The
> "before" group respected their elders, followed the rules of society
> and didn't cause much trouble. The "after" kids challenged authority
> (protests, marches, etc.) thumbed their collective noses at society
> (drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the majority
> of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only disrespected
> their elders, but have come to the point that they don't even respect
> each other, killing each other over trivial things like sneakers.
>
> By the end of the discussion, his basic premise was that every major
> problem today can be traced back to the Beatles, like drug abuse
> (which of course spawned the drug cartels and increased violent crime,
> not to mention theft related crimes as addicts struggled to find money
> to pay for their habbits) aids (as a byproduct of the sexual
> revolution...."all you need is love", right??) as well as the "in your
> face" feeling that many Americans seem to foster....
>
> While I admit to being uncomfortable by the deaths of all the
> teen-agers back in the sixties due to drug use, I think his arguments
> have some really large weaknesses. I thought it might be interesting
> to hear what my fellow RMB'ers think about my co-worker's comments,
> and how they would have responded to them....
I think your friend is a typical right-wing idiot who thinks everything
went wrong in the 60's. Hey, in the 50s there were witch-hunts and
most people lay down like sheep and said nothing. In the 40s we
had the worst mass killings in history, etc. But in the 60s young
people dared to stand up and protest war and racism, and that
pisses these neanderthals off who just want everyone to obey like
good little Germans or something.
Anyway, the social forces that erupted in the 60s were far too huge
and complex to be attributed to the influence of a musical group, and
it shows incredible naivete to propose such a thing. The Beatles
were influential, but they were also part of a larger world-wide youth
awakening and rebellion, and were swept along with everyone else.
The one definite attributable effect on culture was long hair. Without
the Beatles, I don't know if that would have happened. And of course,
musically they led the way. But politically? The Civil Rights movement
had been going on for several years before the Fabs showed up, and
the right-wingers of the day were condemning civil rights acitivists as
commies and subversives. Some of the people who today admit that
Martin Luther King had something worthwhile to say were bitterly
opposed to him then. Drug use? There was no hint in the Beatles'
public persona that that might be a factor until '66 at the earliest, and
by that time it was already happening on all the college campuses.
The Beatles were only following a trend there, not creating one.
As you can guess by now, I am sick almost to death of these whiners
and crybabys who are constantly blaming and pointing the finger at
something that ended the good old conservative days (that were a myth
anyway). The biggest snivelers and complainers in the world are the
right wingers, who are never happy unless they are blaming someone
or somebody.
Dashiell
Frederick W. Harrison
William J. Holland wrote:
>
> The gist of his statement was that he blamed the Beatles for a lot of
> the problems that have plagued America for the past twenty years.
Not a particularly original claim - many writers have made the same
statement, utilizing gross exaggeration, heresay, unsubstantiated
rumours, and outright lies to bolster their arguments. Intelligent
scholarship is hard to find, especially when it comes to pop music, and
objective, substantiated, documented truth should be the basis, purpose,
means, and intent of every writer. (And, yes, I recognize that I still
have much to learn in that regard.)
> He claimed that the Beatles, certainly influenced thousands of young
> minds towards drug use by their own experimentations.
>
Hmm. I thought that marijuana and drug use in rock came from the Beats,
who got it from the jazz musicians who have been using it for decades.
Curiously, the accusation falls short of including alcohol and
prescription drugs (amphetamines, barbituates). The use of narcotics has
been with American society since the early days of patent medicine - many
painkiller syrups were morphine based (most notoriously Mrs. Winslow's
Soothing Syrup - a teething syrup for infants).
What is interesting here is the focus on all the drug casualties since
the 60s, while ignoring the greater number of alcohol casualties. And
let's not forget the casualties from that most addictive of all drugs -
nicotine.
Ironically, the first 60's rock drug song was likely the Rolling Stone's
"Mother's Little Helper" which dealt with drug abuse among adults, as
opposed to adolescents.
> He also argued that by the rebellious image the Beatles created for
> themselves
What image would that be? Young men in suits with long, but well groomed
hair, instructed diligently by Brian Epstein in the basics of civility
and manners? The Stones and Pretty Things were more rebellious in their
choice of apparel and attitude.
, they helped to influence a generation of kids (and those
> that came after) towards disrespect and civil disobedience.
Oh? And what of those wonderful 50's movies that dealt with juvenile
delinquency? Or the classic "The Wild One"?
Some things in the 60s deserved the disrespect of any sane, intelligent
person (i.e. racial discrimination, the arms race, the Vietnam "police
action", McCarthyism, pollution, rampant consumerism)
> The "after" kids challenged authority thumbed their collective noses at
> society (drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the
> majority of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only
> disrespected their elders, but have come to the point that they don't
> even respect each other
In my parents teenage years (1930s), their elders criticized them for
their excessive drinking habits, smoking, dress, dances, music, and
disrespectful attitudes. Go back thirty (or three hundred) years and it's
the same story. Ca plus change, ce plus que la meme chose...
Mind you, the intensity of the things teens do to rebel has increased
substantially and that is of concern, especially in regard with the way
teens treat their peers. Shooting someone for a pair a shoes would be
completely out of the question as a teenager in the 60s/70s - you would
have to be insane or irredeemably evil to have done that (or so we
thought). Earrings and/or makeup on a man were controversial in my day -
enough to get one thrown out of class or beat up on the street - now it
seems that branding would be the contemporary equivalent. The problem is
that the envelope has been pushed so far in the last 30 years, that only
completely outrageous/insane/dangerous/sick acts can achieve the same
shock level.
Long hair? Done that. So's my old man and HIS old man.
Dyed day-glo green and spiked? Too punk - besides you look like a muppet.
Tattooing? My kid sister has tattoos. Something obscene might be OK.
Body piercing? Cool only if on the genitals, otherwise too trendy.
Branding? Kinda out there, but it must be large and visible.
Auto-amputation? Wooooooah! Too far out there!
Sad to say, within a few years the last one will likely become the
current standard. I suppose they will blame it the trend on Vincent Van
Gogh. :)
> By the end of the discussion, his basic premise was that every major
> problem today can be traced back to the Beatles like crime, aids....
Greed was here long before the Beatles, and before aids were syphilis,
gonorrhea, and genital herpes. Other causes cited for the collapse of
civilization include:
Communism.
Voting Democrat, Liberal, or Labour, as the case may be.]
The Industrial Revolution.
The Papacy.
The Reformation.
The Renaissance.
The Fall Of Rome.
The invention of the wheel.
The invention of language.
Standing erect.
Leaving the primordial sea to begin life on land.
Some say it would have been better for us if the Big Bang had never
happened. Bloody critics! :)
Frederick W. Harrison
Bill Harkins
> the kids that came before the Beatles were by and large far
> different than the kids that followed and came after the Beatles. The
> "before" group respected their elders, followed the rules of society
> (protests, marches, etc.) thumbed their collective noses at society
> (drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the majority
> of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only disrespected
> their elders, but have come to the point that they don't even respect
What your co-worker says is absolutely true. It has always been true.
Every generation or so a word or two changes, like "Beatles" or
"sneakers." I think the first surviving record of it having been written
down dates back about 2400 years ago. It's another way of saying "I am
getting older; I am angry; I am scared." And whether we express it in the
lament of your co-worker or in some other silly way, the feeling is
powerful and universal. Personally I just go out and buy more toys.
Bob Stahley
Frederick W. Harrison <harr...@istar.ca> wrote:
: William J. Holland wrote:
: > He also argued that by the rebellious image the Beatles created for
: > themselves
: What image would that be? Young men in suits with long, but well groomed
: hair, instructed diligently by Brian Epstein in the basics of civility
: and manners?
Seems that anything I could have added to this thread has already been
said, 'cept to say that, as much as we (as Beatles fans) hate to admit it,
the Beatles didn't so much influence the social and political changes of
the sixties ('cuz as has been noted, those influences [the oppresiveness
of the fifties, the civil rights movement, the pill, the Beats, etc.] were
around long before the four hit our shores) as much as they refected it.
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
__)__) tosa, witzend Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo!
LGGsNmrl
Well, if they ruined me, I ain't got no interest in being fixed back up.
I feel fine,
~Lisa
~<{}>~
DISCLAIMER: Half of what I say is meaningless
~ < { } > ~
Lisa "Leggs" Gardner LGGs...@aol.com
(A short-haired girl who sometimes
wears it twice as long)
lsh
In article <657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
hol29...@mindspring.com (William J. Holland) wrote:
>I was having a discussion/debate about the Beatles with a co-worker
>the other day. In answer to a question, I had listed my reasons for my
>devotion to the Beatles. When I was finished, he laid this one on me.
>
>claimed that the Beatles, while of course not inventing marijuana,
>acid or other illegal drugs, certainly influenced thousands of young
>minds towards drug use by their own experimentations, thereby playing
>a role in the deaths of thousands of kids in the sixties and helping
>to create a national drug problem that still rages today.
>
>that came after) towards disrespect and civil disobedience. He pointed
>out that the kids that came before the Beatles were by and large far
>different than the kids that followed and came after the Beatles. The
>"before" group respected their elders, followed the rules of society
>and didn't cause much trouble. The "after" kids challenged authority
>(protests, marches, etc.) thumbed their collective noses at society
>(drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the majority
>of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only disrespected
>their elders, but have come to the point that they don't even respect
>each other, killing each other over trivial things like sneakers.
>
>(which of course spawned the drug cartels and increased violent crime,
>not to mention theft related crimes as addicts struggled to find money
>to pay for their habbits) aids (as a byproduct of the sexual
>revolution...."all you need is love", right??) as well as the "in your
>face" feeling that many Americans seem to foster....
>
>While I admit to being uncomfortable by the deaths of all the
>teen-agers back in the sixties due to drug use, I think his arguments
>have some really large weaknesses. I thought it might be interesting
>to hear what my fellow RMB'ers think about my co-worker's comments,
>and how they would have responded to them....
>
>
i had written an longer response yeterday which somehow didnt get posted or maybe it will but i think i had a connection problem and there is no way i can recall it all but one interesting fact to point out to him if you really want to engage him, is that of jesus and christianity. is jesus responsible for all the millions of deaths and tortures that were done in his name.
well lets see if this one makes it in
devraj
"Sexy Sadie what have you done
you made a fool of everyone"
JL & P
lsh
this is the scoop which has nothing to do with this thread BUT i think i sent a post here just saying fuck and i want to apologize and explain. i had typed a wonderful post (at least i thought so) and when i tried to post it i couldnt and it was in my outbox but when i closed my outbox and then reopened it no post. i was very pissed because i had intended on pasting my post on my on drive to save it and forgot so i lost it all and blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
so in frustration i went to add a reply to post and typesd fuck and then went to post it and of course it went right ahead and got sent.
so sorry for that!!!
P.S. if by some miracle my original post made it...forget about this.
lsh
fuck
Andrew John Walker
Well I'd hate to think what some of todays bands and artists
are doing to the world!
--
* Andrew Walker *
* Department Of Physics * e-mail -- aj...@uow.edu.au
* Wollongong University *
* Australia *
Calvin MacLean
>In article <657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
> hol29...@mindspring.com (William J. Holland) wrote:
>>The gist of his statement was that he blamed the Beatles for a lot of
>>the problems that have plagued America for the past twenty years. He
>>claimed that the Beatles, while of course not inventing marijuana,
>>acid or other illegal drugs, certainly influenced thousands of young
>>minds towards drug use by their own experimentations, thereby playing
>>a role in the deaths of thousands of kids in the sixties and helping
>>to create a national drug problem that still rages today.
The real interesting aspect of this POV is that your friend has
perhaps more historical instinct than it might appear. His analysis,
however, is overly simplistic and betrays what appears to be more
moral indignation than historical perception.
Most historians acknowledge the Kennedy assassination as a watershed
moment in US history. The shock and aftermath of that event can more
successfully be argued as a root to the later rebelliousness, loss of
national confidence, spasms of violence, and need for drug-induced
escape that characterized the next decade or so. The disaster of
Vietnam, the assassinations of MLK and RFK, as well as the election of
Nixon can arguably be directly connected to JFK's death in Dallas.
The Beatles emergence onto the international stage can be directly
tied to their appearance on Ed Sullivan and there reception in early
1964 is almost universally associated with an end to the national (if
not world-wide) grief and shock of the assassination. An important
historical accident.
Your friend's sensitivity to the confluence of these historical forces
(the great tragedy/the ecstasy of Beatlemania in America) is astute, I
think. However, the argument descends into a common mistake (again,
IMHO) -- that popular culture and art is further in the lead of social
behavior and social condition than other forces (economic, political
enfranchisement, war, etc.) There is no doubt in my mind that art and
popular culture (such as the Beatles) have and have had an impact. An
important and arguably major impact on baby-boomer self-perception.
But to focus on them without considering the more important and
dramatic events of the sixties is, I think, to misperceive the real
historical forces and to "blame the messenger."
cal
Anita
Some people just want someone to blame, and I guess the Beatles, due to
their fame and impact, are an easy target.
Sort of related: when I was 18, I entered my city's beauty pageant, and was
quickly disqualified by the judges after the on-stage "Q&A" portion of the
competition. You see, my question related to the effects of the Beatles on
modern society. I launched into a speech about how they helped to spur and
feed the Sexual Revolution, and uh, well, you can guess the rest. . .
Bill Kopp
"Anita" <an...@scn.org> sez:
LOL!!! I guess your last name isn't Bryant.
---------------------------------------------
To reply, please direct correspondence
to fabfour at mindspring dot com
Sorry for the inconvenience. Die, Spammers.
---------------------------------------------
rjs...@calcube.com
William J. Holland wrote:
>
> I was having a discussion/debate about the Beatles with a co-worker
> the other day. In answer to a question, I had listed my reasons for my
> devotion to the Beatles. When I was finished, he laid this one on me.
>
> the problems that have plagued America for the past twenty years. He
> claimed that the Beatles, while of course not inventing marijuana,
> acid or other illegal drugs, certainly influenced thousands of young
> minds towards drug use by their own experimentations, thereby playing
> a role in the deaths of thousands of kids in the sixties and helping
> to create a national drug problem that still rages today.
>
> themselves, they helped to influence a generation of kids (and those
> that came after) towards disrespect and civil disobedience. He pointed
> out that the kids that came before the Beatles were by and large far
> different than the kids that followed and came after the Beatles. The
> "before" group respected their elders, followed the rules of society
> and didn't cause much trouble. The "after" kids challenged authority
> (protests, marches, etc.) thumbed their collective noses at society
> (drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the majority
> of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only disrespected
> their elders, but have come to the point that they don't even respect
> each other, killing each other over trivial things like sneakers.
>
> By the end of the discussion, his basic premise was that every major
> problem today can be traced back to the Beatles, like drug abuse
> (which of course spawned the drug cartels and increased violent crime,
> not to mention theft related crimes as addicts struggled to find money
> to pay for their habbits) aids (as a byproduct of the sexual
> revolution...."all you need is love", right??) as well as the "in your
> face" feeling that many Americans seem to foster....
>
> While I admit to being uncomfortable by the deaths of all the
> teen-agers back in the sixties due to drug use, I think his arguments
> have some really large weaknesses. I thought it might be interesting
> to hear what my fellow RMB'ers think about my co-worker's comments,
> and how they would have responded to them....
Tell your friend to get a life! I don't know where to start. Dylan (the
American) introduced the Beatles to drugs. America lost its virginity
with Watergate (another American contribution). The music of the time
was a reflection of social mores initiating change. America was a wild
animal that had been caged up and wanted out! The early Beatles lyrics
were extremely tame, and I beg to differ with your friend that they
changed America. The Beatles were obviously a potent catalyst towards
what direction music headed, but to assert they're culpable for social
demise in the US is unwarranted. Tell him it was Chuck Berrys fault;)
Americas' problems today stem from very complex economic, social, racial
and political issues that are all double-edged. There is no one right
answer for everybody, and that causes mass confusion for those who wish
to condense their own world to "black & white". I could write a 20 page
summation of my thoughts about this, but it's wasted bandwidth, and this
usenet is about the Beatles, not me.
Tell your buddy that "All You Need Is Love" was a song written about
providing the foundation for a family nucleus, or about helping a friend
out in need, or maybe just about making a positive contribution to
mankind, hoping to reverse that "in your face" attitude. Good luck!
--
Robert J. Salvi, Ambiance Acoustics
California Cube Loudspeaker System
http://www.calcube.com
San Diego, CA USA
619-485-7514
Jim Kendall
William J. Holland wrote:
[about his myopic friend who blames the Beatles for the woes
of the world]:
I have two suggestions:
1) Remind your friend that by his reasoning, one Hebrew called
Jesus caused hundreds of millions of deaths perpetrated by the
religious cast.
2) He, your friend, might want to check and make sure he didn't
put his jockey shorts on backwards this morning.
Cheers!
"Christ, you know it ain't EEEasy"
(RIP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kendall +--------------+ O-O - - o o
ji...@supertex.com | This message | | ^ '
(408)222-4816 voice | was | ~
(408)222-4804 FAX | pre-recorded |___/
+--------------+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAmagazine
>his basic premise was that every major
>problem today can be traced back to the Beatles
The definitive treatment of this topic is Ian MacDonald's introduction to his
book of Beatles criticism "Revolution in the Head." He does a brilliant job of
weaving together strands of the social forces at work between the '50s and the
'90s and placing the Beatles in context among them.
Ted
Bob Stahley
IAmagazine <iamag...@aol.com> wrote:
: The definitive treatment of this topic is Ian MacDonald's introduction to his
: book of Beatles criticism "Revolution in the Head." He does a brilliant job of
: weaving together strands of the social forces at work between the '50s and the
: '90s and placing the Beatles in context among them.
While I wouldn't go so far as to call it "brilliant," MacDonald's
introductory essay is thought-provoking and well worth checking out,
imho, even tho the rest of the book doesn't do much for me.
Dave Helland
Sounds like another case of the "smaller than life" envying the "larger than
life" fab icons (ala Mark Chapman)
William J. Holland wrote in message <657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
Mcgbjk
Well, it's an interesting, if simplistic point. Did the Beatles "ruin"
America? Of course not. Did they contribute in any way to the moral breakdown
our society has seen since the 60s? Tough call.
First, what does your co worker mean exactly by "ruined"? From what I see,
today our economy is as strong as it has ever been, opportunities for
minorities and women have expanded pretty steadily for most of the post WWII
era, and with the exception of Watergate, our government has stumbled along
without any major convulsions. So I am not exactly sure that we have been
"ruined".
On the other hand, since the 60s, we have seen massive increases in violent
crime (recently significantly decreasing), drug use, and teen and out of
wedlock pregnancies. These are not good signs, I think we can all agree on
that. So the question is: What, if anything, did the Beatles contribute to
these social problems?
Well, as far as crime goes, there is certainly no direct connection. At no
point in their careers have any of the Fabs advocated violence. As a matter of
fact, they spoke out against it on many occasions.
Drugs. Let's be honest here, they didn't help. Fact is, as teen idols, role
models, heros, etc, they had a strong influence. It's very easy as a fan to
say that "yeah, guys grew their hair because of them" while ignoring that many
probably did try drugs (particularly pot and acid) because they did. Would
people have done drugs if there were no Beatles? Sure, they always have. But
my guess is that there were more than a few kids out there who tried acid
because the Beatles (Paul in particular) RECOMMENDED it. This of course,
brings us back to crime, since drugs are often cited as a cause of violent
crime. Now, acid and pot do not turn users into violent maniacal felons. But,
drug use, of any type, once that line is crossed, maybe the kid who dropped a
few hits of LSD decided to try coke. Then heroin. Then he robbed the liquor
store. Who knows? Beatles fault? Probably not IMO, since no one can, or
should, be held responsible for another's actions. At the same time, for role
models such as themselves, to completely abrogate any responsibility they may
have had in influencing others to follow their paths is a cop out.
Teen pregnancy? Again, hard to pin on the Beatles. They certainly weren't
encouraging unwed 15 year old girls to get pregnant. Yet, the whole 60s aura
of free love, "if it feels good", etc, may have led to a bit of a breakdown in
some of our social mores.
A bit convuluted, I know. But that's as it should be, after all, it is really
not a yes or no question. Did the Beatles contribute to some of these
problems? Sure, Ithink so. Did they "cause" these problems? Of course not.
Would these things have happened anyway? Probably, but who knows?
Jason Shumate
Dave Helland (djhe...@email.msn.com) wrote:
: Sounds like another case of the "smaller than life" envying the "larger than
I could show you literature from the 1950s when my dad was a teenager
about how evil comic books are and how they were single handedly turning
US kids into "juvenile delinquents" at best, rapists and killers at worst.
Yes, comic books. Not TV, not popular music, but comic books. Do you know
anyone who seriously today thinks comic books are an evil influence on
today's youth? The US Senate took it seriously enough to have hearings on
it. _Mad_, the humor magazine, started out as a comic book and became a
magazine to escape the restrictions that we placed on comic books around
1955 or so. A noted psychologist of the time, Dr. Frederick Wortham, wrote
a book about how evil comics were responsible for all the ills of society
and called it _Seduction Of The Innocent_. The point of all this is that
no one seriously believes today that comic books ruined American youth of
the 1950s. Societal changes were occurring at that time and more have
happened. I think affixing the blame to any one thing is probably not
a real good idea. Drug abuse and violent crime were around before 1960,
you just didn't hear about them so much and they may not have been quite so
prevalent, but they were still there.
(see signature for correct address)
--
CUL8R, | Lord Arthur: "Are all men from the future
Jason Shumate | loud-mouthed braggarts?"
System Administrator type guy | Ash: "Nope. Just me, baby. Just me."
jshu...@es.atl.sita.int | - Army Of Darkness
Don Leighty
Tom wrote:
>
> >As one of the thousands of teenagers killed by drugs in the sixties,
> >I question your friend's statistics...
> >
> Following this line of reasoning, I take it that the fact veterans of
> WW2 are alive means that no one died in the second world war?
I can't follow any of this line of reasoning. That's the trouble.
I probably shouldn't have made this remark in just this manner. One
death brought on by a bad experience with psychedelics is tragic and
shouldn't be downplayed. But I *would* like to see a source for the
"thousands" of teenage deaths this person was claiming. Other than
"Reefer Madness", of course.
I knew, and knew of, quite a number of people who were claimed by the
war, underage drinking, street crime, reckless and irresponsible
driving, etc. I knew no one personally who came even remotely close to
dying as a result of drugs in the Sixties or early Seventies. What
other forms of damage may have been done is certainly open to
discussion...
--
Best Wishes,
Don Leighty <cl...@westol.com>
"I'm high all right. But not on false drugs.
I'm high on the real thing - powerful gasoline,
a clean windshield, and a shoeshine." - Pastor Rod Flash
lauren Marts
Jeez, the crap that your co-worker is spreading is so simplistic and stupid
that to respond to it almost gives it more credit than it deserves. If the
Beatles did create the drug problem in the United States, they were more
visionary and magical than any of us would have previously imagined, seeing
as drug use and addiction has been a problem that has ebbed and flowed in
this country for over a century. You can find articles from the early
parts of this century that bemoan our drug-added society. For the Beatles
to have caused this to have happened accords them powers of transcendence
over space and time--and you thought Sgt. Pepper was an accomplishment.
Of course, considering that the Beatles created sex and promiscuity, the
drugs weren't so bad. Teenagers never had sex before 1964. This is why
the teen pregnancy rate was actually higher in the 1950s than it is now. A
statistic like that would shoot down a lot of Ol Gloom and Doom's argument.
Actually, to say that four men could cause general societal decadence of
any sort is interestingly facile. It ignores any structural change in the
economy, such as the shift from a manufacturing to a high-tech/service
economy or flat periods that threw people out of work. Sociologists like
William Julius Wilson have shown that when people are out of work for long
periods of time, values like taboos against crime and drugs become weaker,
causing problems like those your friend fears. Further, I'd suggest you
check out Stephanie Coontz' The Way We Never Were, a book which examines a
lot of our current problems and puts them in the context of the mileu in
which they occur and doesn't throw blame on some silly shift caused by bad
morals, whatever the cause, be it liberals in general or the Fab Four.
Good luck, but this guy ain't gonna listen. Sounds like a Conservadork
from hell, what with that simplistic, reductive approach. Also, note that
tendency to equate love (All You Need is Love) with sex. That is a nice
touch, but I don't recall the song as having to refer to sex. Typical
preoccupation with sex . . . ahhhh, love those cool reactionary types.
John M. Calabro
lauren Marts wrote:
> the teen pregnancy rate was actually higher in the 1950s than it is now.
Just curious, where'd you hear this?
John Calabro
http://rfny.simplenet.com Pirate radio, prank phone calls, out takes,
jingles, much more
Radio Free New York
d.
In article <19971201235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
neoh...@aol.com (Neohippie) wrote:
> Gee, I wish I knew how to write songs.
You won't know if you can until you try...try it! And keep trying.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~northcut/cradle.html
"A gift for melody is so rare that, in revenge, critics call it a craft." - Luke Nicholson on Paul McCartney, The New Yorker, November 10, 1997
John M. Calabro
Mandy wrote:
> Besides, society always has had these problems. Does that guy think that
> everything was peachy, then all of a sudden in the 60's we had all these
> problems? No, we already had the problems, we just didn't talk about it.
> Everything was there, teen pregnancy, drugs, child and spousal abuse,
> everything!
Yes, these problems have always been around, but the fact is that they
are much more prevalent nowadays - especially violent crime among young
people, and violent crime in general. Lately much has been made about
the drop in national crime rates, but it's only a drop to around 1990
levels! Crime in America was on a steady decline up until the 60's.
> We just ignored them and watched _Leave it to Beaver_. Or, at
> least, you did.
Nonsense. We didn't "ignore" the problems - we dealt with them, and
apparently pretty effectively since they were declining up until the
60's radicalism and liberalism came along and ushered in 35 years of
coddling criminals instead of punishing them!
> Old Bob Dole doesn't care if the ozone
> layer is thinning, he'll be dead soon anyway.
An award-winning statement if ever I saw one.
> Your old road is rapidly fading!
> Get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand!
Of course your youth will last forever and ever, eh?
John Calabro
http://rfny.simplenet.com Radio Free New York fun and games!
RHopentune
Tell your co-worker that the Beatles didn't do a damn thing but show bigoted,
uptight, self-loathing Americans how to loosen up and enjoy life.
Mcgbjk
neohippie wrote:
>I have some thoughts on this...
>First, I think this is yet another case of adults seeing teenagers in an
>extremely negative light. I hate that! You watch the news and see bunches of
>teenagers in gangs, body pirced, and doing drugs. It's a stereotype! Most of
us
>are not like that. I'm not like that, and out of all the teens at my high
>school, there are probably about 15 kids that fit that sterotype. Now, I do
>live in a small town in Texas, so it could be different than New York or even
>south Dallas (actually, I KNOW it's much different in Dallas), but I still
>think the majority of teens are not like that. What I'm saying is, the problem
>is not that bad to begin with.
I don't think teens wearing baggy pants, piercing themselves, etc, is what is
considered the "problem". The problem is that since the 60s, drug use and
violent crime have increased dramatically. This is not a matter of perception,
it's a statistical fact.
>Second, society's ills can be blamed on all sorts of things. I read a most
>interesting book called _The Human Zoo_ by Desmond Morris, a British
>zoologist.
>This guy is interesting because he studies humans with the exact same >meathod
>he uses with all other animals. Anyway, in this book he tries to figure out
why
>humans are so screwed up compared to other animals. (Ever seen wolves doing
>drugs or having wars? Of course not). He pretty much comes to the conclusion
>that it's because we're overcrowded and so our natural social structure has
>been all messed up. He does mention rock music and teenage rebellion, but
>says
>the music actually just reflects what's going on, and teenage rebellion is
just
>a natural thing we do when we're given the freedom, which we were.
>Besides, society always has had these problems.
But in the book you mention, it has to do with overcrowding, which is unique to
the 20th century. Yes, society has always been violent, and long before there
were too many people in the world.
> Does that guy think that
>everything was peachy, then all of a sudden in the 60's we had all these
>problems? No, we already had the problems, we just didn't talk about it.
Actually, the problems got worse is the point. Has their been violent crime
throughout human history? Of course. has there been violent crime throughout
history comparable to the level we see in our society? Not even close. Maybe
the reason that these problems were not headlines in the 50s is that back then,
we dealt with crime in a realistic manner. You know, we are so proud here in
NYC that we are only looking at 700 murders this year (down from close to 2000
just a few years ago) which makes us the safest large city in America. But in
the 50s, there were about 300 murders a year.
>Everything was there, teen pregnancy, drugs, child and spousal abuse,
e>verything! We just ignored them and watched _Leave it to Beaver_. Or, at
>least, you did. People have been fucked up for thousands of years. Of course,
>we'd still make great pets. :-)
Yeah, there was teen pregnancy, but not to the extent we see today. Again, not
even close. Get real Mandy, we are closing on a 50% out of wedlock birthrate
in this nation.
>Okay, I'm almost done, but I wanted to get one more thing in. Maybe I can't
>give a logical answer, because it seems to me that most of you think being a
>rebel is a bad thing. I don't. I think America NEEDED SOME RUINING! Yeah!
>That's what young people are for, to question old ways
Sadly, the same movements that were about "questioning" the old ways, are the
movements that led to increased drug use, crime, and teen pregnancy. It is
called moral relativism, and it may be the true legacy of the 60s, and a
dangerous one at that. But we'll let future generations sort out exactly what
went wrong.
>. We don't have kids or
>careers to worry about like the sedate adults, so we can HIT THE STREETS! >How
>else is society supposed to advance?
How about education? How about returning to an era when people actually
respected eachother and took responsibility for their actions?
> Old Bob Dole doesn't care if the ozone
>layer is thinning, he'll be dead soon anyway.
Yep.
> My peers and I are the ones that
>will have to clean up the mess you left for us!
Who left this mess Mandy? And who continues to make it today? Does the phrase
"60s generation" come to mind at all? Because they are the ones who are
running the big businesses, and to some extent, the government, today.
Will Kennington
>
>I don't think teens wearing baggy pants, piercing themselves, etc, is what is
>considered the "problem". The problem is that since the 60s, drug use and
>violent crime have increased dramatically. This is not a matter of perception,
>it's a statistical fact.
evan tomorows, but not yestardays.
>Actually, the problems got worse is the point. Has their been violent crime
>throughout human history? Of course. has there been violent crime throughout
>history comparable to the level we see in our society? Not even close. Maybe
>the reason that these problems were not headlines in the 50s is that back then,
>we dealt with crime in a realistic manner. You know, we are so proud here in
>NYC that we are only looking at 700 murders this year (down from close to 2000
>just a few years ago) which makes us the safest large city in America. But in
>the 50s, there were about 300 murders a year.
so are you blamin the 60's genarashion, todays youth or the police hear?
>Yeah, there was teen pregnancy, but not to the extent we see today. Again, not
>even close. Get real Mandy, we are closing on a 50% out of wedlock birthrate
>in this nation.
this is it thogh, its that bein born out of wedlock used to be a
problem, but it isant such a bad thing any moare. its aceptid now, and
so it aint a problem. i am 18 and i have a son, he's 2. i am not
marryed. many adults disaproove of this, not many poeple my age do. and
it's US who are takin ovar, our responisbilitys, relatinships, problams
etc. NOT adults. society is shiftin and this is a good thing. religion
is on a popularity decline, religious morals are not applied any more,
but when were they set?
>Sadly, the same movements that were about "questioning" the old ways, are the
>movements that led to increased drug use, crime, and teen pregnancy. It is
>called moral relativism, and it may be the true legacy of the 60s, and a
>dangerous one at that. But we'll let future generations sort out exactly what
>went wrong.
>
she was rite, 'old ways' arent aplicabal anymore, but this is a good
thing.
>>. We don't have kids or
>>careers to worry about like the sedate adults, so we can HIT THE STREETS! >How
>>else is society supposed to advance?
>
>How about education?
society shood advance throgh education? out of our control. im dyslexic
and almost completely innumerate. my education was at inner city
comprehensives. i coodant demand a betar quality of teachin aged 11, and
i coodant aford a fee payin school, so i have no education. therfore
your sayin i cant advance society in anyway but as it is and i am doin
very well for myself.
> How about returning to an era when people actually
>respected eachother and took responsibility for their actions?
i extreemly respect my brothars and sistars and frends, i take
responsibitiy for evarythin i do. id go to the end of the earth for my
brothars and ive spent many nites in cells for things iave done. i dont
want to return to an era when things were not discuses and socity
brandid poeple.
as we are takin ovar, (dont meen that to sound like oldar poeple are
dying and not needid, sorry!) we need to re establish our own vershion
of society. we rely have to change or there is no point. things change
all the time. anyone who doesant want this... well they sholdant realy
be hear becuase this is a modern means of comunicashion.
>Who left this mess Mandy? And who continues to make it today? Does the phrase
>"60s generation" come to mind at all? Because they are the ones who are
>running the big businesses, and to some extent, the government, today.
>
>
so are you blamin the 60s genarashion for the moral and social decline
of the world, or todays youth?
will kennington
Change nospam to utcalcis for return email address
karat
lsh wrote:
> <<snippidy doo daa>>
> if you really want to engage him, is that of jesus and christianity.
> is jesus responsible for all the millions of deaths and tortures that
> were done in his name.
>
> well lets see if this one makes it in
>
> devraj
Sorry, big dawg, but you're on the wrong track there. Thanks for
playin' though... :)
Love Always,
karat
Chris Dashiell
John M. Calabro <giga...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<348394...@geocities.com>...
> Nonsense. We didn't "ignore" the problems - we dealt with them, and
> apparently pretty effectively since they were declining up until the
> 60's radicalism and liberalism came along and ushered in 35 years of
> coddling criminals instead of punishing them!
In the 50s, black people were still being lynched. Segregation was
accepted. And the "conservatives" wanted it to stay that way. Yeah,
what a great golden age that was.
In the 50s, right-wing antisemite nutjobs hijacked the Constitution
and instituted witch hunts. Becoming mirror images of the Stalinists
they hated, they put on show trials and stoked the fires of hysteria
with lies and innuendo. Anyone disagreeing with them was a traitor
and an enemy. All in order to further their own political careers - most
people stayed silent like sheep. The "conservatives" still defend that
time of fear and repression. They still demonize their opponents as
traitors. All to mask their utter lack of ideas. Oh, yeah, what a halcyon
time that was.
Two world wars in this century. Unprecedented bloodletting and
persecution. The invention of nuclear weapons - the threat of using
these weapons with the entire population of the world as hostages.
As if human beings were gods who could decide the life and death
of entire peoples, the entire planet - and if you questioned it you
were a radical, a subversive. And many called themselves Christians.
Whited sepulchres.
But now they whine and bellyache constantly about the 60s. Because
young people started saying no to segregation, no to war, no to nuclear
weapons. Oh boo-hoo. Everything was so much better before those
awful hippies ruined everything. Wake up, you whining sniveling right-
wing gasbags. If you didn't have something to cry about, someone to
point your finger at, you'd have nothing. The cold war is over so now
you have to blame the feminists, the gays, the liberals. You have to
cry about the 60s and talk about how much better it was before. That
was 30 years ago, you fucking morons. You are living in the past, like
you always have. Except your past never actually existed. It's all in
your tiny little minds.
Dashiell
GlazedLamb
Simple Solution: Blame it on the Stones.
hehehe, Okay, seriously....
The Beatles were definately not alone in drug use, and certainly weren't the
main influence. You've got the Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Janis
Joplin, and a cast of a million different characters doing a million times the
"damage" the Beatles did.
Come on, get real. An innocent record like Abbey Road came out the same time
Jim Morrison and the Doors were starting riots, publicly being obscene, and
even (jim) allegedly exposing himself on stage . The Beatles were the innocent
composers behind the smokestack. In my opinion anyway, it was a very beautiful
time. John Lennon and "Give Peace a Chance" helped stop the Vietnam war, you
can't tell me thats wrong. The Beatles touched a lot of people's lives and
changed music forever, they were hardly responsible for any of America's
problems.
Your friend is seriously wrong... and all that
-Tha Glazed Lamb
(how long do you think music could stay so innocent?)
-----------------------------------
4 DOLLARS:
Jim Morrison's houseboat creatively entitled "Aunt Gemima",
30409 Cattleprod Rd. 3902133, 555-555-5501 ask for Joel and
Manny, and don't request "pillow cases".
Sugar is bleached, dont be disillusioned.
Jeff Mills
In article <657e2j$h...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
hol29...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I was having a discussion/debate about the Beatles with a co-worker
> the other day. In answer to a question, I had listed my reasons for my
> devotion to the Beatles. When I was finished, he laid this one on me.
>
> The gist of his statement was that he blamed the Beatles for a lot of
> the problems that have plagued America for the past twenty years. He
> claimed that the Beatles, while of course not inventing marijuana,
> acid or other illegal drugs, certainly influenced thousands of young
> minds towards drug use by their own experimentations, thereby playing
> a role in the deaths of thousands of kids in the sixties and helping
> to create a national drug problem that still rages today.
Two words, personal responsibility. Anyone who reaches for a joint or
a piece of cocaine or a drink is making a personal choice. You can't
blame The Beatles on influencing drug use by their own experimentations.
I am twenty five years old and have never touched a drug in my life. I
made that choice a long time ago to be drug-free. They made the choice
to take drugs.
> He also argued that by the rebellious image the Beatles created for
> themselves, they helped to influence a generation of kids (and those
> that came after) towards disrespect and civil disobedience.
Most kids are rebellious anyways towards authority. You can't blame
The Beatles for that. And by the way, the image of the Beatles was of a
clean-cut group, remember? When they first came to America, they were
presented as four, cuddly mop-tops. This was what drove John Lennon mad
because he hated being pigeonholed as the others did, too. Remember, the
Stones were "bad" and the Beatles were "good." In the late 1960s it was
starting to change, but rebellion shouldn't be a dirty word. If
anything, the Beatles encouraged young people to think for themselves and
be original.
He pointed
> out that the kids that came before the Beatles were by and large far
> different than the kids that followed and came after the Beatles. The
> "before" group respected their elders, followed the rules of society
> and didn't cause much trouble. The "after" kids challenged authority
> (protests, marches, etc.) thumbed their collective noses at society
> (drug use, dressing and grooming in a way that offended the majority
> of people, having irresponsible sex, etc.) and not only disrespected
> their elders, but have come to the point that they don't even respect
> each other, killing each other over trivial things like sneakers.
I don't know of any Beatle fan who killed someone over sneakers. Must
have been someone who wanted to trade in their "old brown shoes." ;-)
> By the end of the discussion, his basic premise was that every major
> problem today can be traced back to the Beatles, like drug abuse
> (which of course spawned the drug cartels and increased violent crime,
> not to mention theft related crimes as addicts struggled to find money
> to pay for their habbits) aids (as a byproduct of the sexual
> revolution...."all you need is love", right??) as well as the "in your
> face" feeling that many Americans seem to foster....
As John Lennon said, "The Beatles only ever part of a movement." They
reflected society, society did not reflect The Beatles.
> While I admit to being uncomfortable by the deaths of all the
> teen-agers back in the sixties due to drug use, I think his arguments
> have some really large weaknesses. I thought it might be interesting
> to hear what my fellow RMB'ers think about my co-worker's comments,
> and how they would have responded to them....
There were a lot of bad things that happened in the 1960s, but let us
think back to the good, too. How about civil rights and women's rights
for a start?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Steve
Chris Dashiell wrote:
>
>
> In the 50s, black people were still being lynched. Segregation was
> accepted. And the "conservatives" wanted it to stay that way. Yeah,
> what a great golden age that was.
And the liberal politicians exploited the situation for political gain.
> As if human beings were gods who could decide the life and death
> of entire peoples, the entire planet - and if you questioned it you
> were a radical, a subversive. And many called themselves Christians.
> Whited sepulchres.
>
> But now they whine and bellyache constantly about the 60s.
You're way out in left field here. Many of the conservatives today were
the radical hippies of the 60's. Check out PJ's "Give War a Chance".
> Wake up, you whining sniveling right-
> wing gasbags. If you didn't have something to cry about, someone to
> point your finger at, you'd have nothing. The cold war is over so now
Thank you very much, Mr. Reagan!
Back to the Beatles:
You can't deny the Beatles influenced us. And the influence went far
beyond music. People began to think for themselves-it was OK to grow
your hair long. It was OK to look different. It was OK to speak your
mind. And, it was OK to question authority.
I think this has led to a more open society, and we gained more freedom
in the process, and unfortunatly some pretty negative side effects. But
we're geting there.
I don't think you can blame the Beatles for moral decay any more than
you can credit them for the collapse of the Berlin wall. But they were a
part of the process. If they hadn't come along, I think the world would
be a darker, less interesting place than it is now.
--
***sporter***
ste...@mindspring.com
"Seasons don't fear the reaper, nor do the wind, the sun and the rain"
Greg Wallace
Mcgbjk <mcg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971202154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
> Sadly, the same movements that were about "questioning" the old ways, are
the
> movements that led to increased drug use, crime, and teen pregnancy. It
is
> called moral relativism, and it may be the true legacy of the 60s, and a
> dangerous one at that. But we'll let future generations sort out exactly
what
> went wrong.
>
Yeah, moral relativism is pretty horrible, just like civil rights for all
races and peace on earth instead of 55,000 dead (and many more maimed) in
Vietnam; those are the two issues the 60's were really all about and you
wonderful moralists were absolutely no help at all. But, of course, these
accomplishments matter not at all to those persons like you who want
another golden age of authority.
Let me say that the perfect golden age of authority and moral absolutes was
prior to 1914. Think of all those poor guys who did the responsible thing
the generals, politicians, church leaders, and even the women insisted
upon: get yer ass shot up in the Somme, or Verdun, or wherever. That's
what authority is really all about: people who don't know what they're
talking about telling other people what to do. Thanks, I'll take
relativism or at least tolerance.
GlazedLamb
>The problem is that since the 60s, drug use and
>>violent crime have increased dramatically.
Actually, though violent crime has increased, drug use has been on the decline
since the 70's, and more people are graduating from High school.
-The Glazed Lamb
RasMaster
John M. Calabro <giga...@geocities.com> wrote in
>article
<348394...@geocities.com>...
> Nonsense. We didn't "ignore" the
>problems - we dealt with them, and
> apparently pretty effectively since they
>were declining up until the
> 60's radicalism and liberalism came along and
>ushered in 35 years of
> coddling criminals instead of punishing them!
It's fun to pretend, isn't it.
Bob
RasMaster
In article <348509...@mindspring.com>, Steve <ste...@mindspring.com>
writes:
>> In the 50s, black people were still being lynched. Segregation was
>
>accepted. And the "conservatives" wanted it to stay that way. Yeah,
> what a
>great golden age that was.
And the liberal politicians exploited the
>situation for political gain.
Ya typed it wrong. You meant "and the liberal politicians did all
they could to corrent the situation".
you're welcome.
Be more careful next time.
Bob
RasMaster
>> In the 50s, black people were still being lynched. Segregation was
>
>accepted. And the "conservatives" wanted it to stay that way. Yeah,
> what a
>great golden age that was.
And the liberal politicians exploited the
>situation for political gain.
Ya typed it wrong. You meant "and the liberal politicians did all
they could to correct the situation".
Steve
>
> And the liberal politicians exploited the
> >situation for political gain.
>
> Ya typed it wrong. You meant "and the liberal politicians did all
> they could to corrent the situation".
>
"Corrent" the situation? Is that what I meant? Is that good or bad?
--
***sporter***
Steve
> >
> >accepted. And the "conservatives" wanted it to stay that way. Yeah,
> > what a
> >great golden age that was.
>
> >situation for political gain.
>
> Ya typed it wrong. You meant "and the liberal politicians did all
>
> you're welcome.
>
> Be more careful next time.
>
> Bob
>
>
Take two!
OK. I get it, now. You're trying to make a point, and you have to keep
trying till you get it right. Practice, Bob, practice. You might
actually come up with something one of these days...
--
***sporter***
Steve
RasMaster wrote:
>
> Take two!
>
> OK. I get it, now. You're trying to
> >make a point, and you have to keep
> trying till you get it right. Practice,
> >Bob, practice. You might
> actually come up with something one of these
> >days...
> --
> ***sporter***
>
>
> Here's the interesting lesson to observe here. I made a small
> mistake, a typo, and corrected before I sent the note (how
> I managed to send both versions, I don't know, but it's not
> really relevant).
Blue Meanies, I'm sure.
>
> It is ironic that you, of all people, have chosen to point out my
> little error, since your posts on subjects regarding to social
> and political history and current sociopolitical issues are so
> consistantly inaccurate, wrongheaded and off base! And these
> are BIG mistakes! And you NEVER correct them. It's always
> left to me and my dear progressive friends.
Would that be the rmb "click" that's often discussed here? It's easy to
be dogmatic when you've got your buddies behind you.
My politcal views come out from time to time, but I refrain from shoving
them down people's throats, as you do. And really, I don't recall ever
being corrected. Many Beatle fans think differently than you. That seems
a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
If you wanna discuss politics, email me.
--
***sporter***
(auto mechanic, expert in political history and current sociopolitical
issues, Beatle fan, and part-time nuclear physicist, trying to find
common ground.)
RasMaster
In article <3487AC...@mindspring.com>, Steve <ste...@mindspring.com>
writes:
>Would that be the rmb "click" that's often discussed here? It's easy to
be
>dogmatic when you've got your buddies behind you.
Not really, you are limiting yourself to RMB, when I refer to progressive
friends, I am speaking more globally. Bad politics needs correction
wherever it is found.
>My politcal views come out
>from time to time, but I refrain from shoving
them down people's throats, as
>you do. And really, I don't recall ever
being corrected.
You should really read more carefully, then. Perhaps I have just
identified the real problem. Might I suggest the book "blaming
the victim". It's as good a start as any. Dick Gregory wrote
some great stuff. If reading is not your cup of tea, you might
listen to a collection of Pete Seeger's work, and/or take in
one of his (now all-too-rare) concerts.
Many Beatle fans
>think differently than you.
Yes, some prefer George to John. I prefer John to George.
> That seems
a very difficult concept for you to
>grasp.
I understand that my views are not the only ones here or in
the world at large. So what. I do not pretend to speak for
you. I have lived, worked and generally spent great amounts
of time with conservatives, and know many of their arguments
backwards and forwards, and they mostly are worth very little.
>If you wanna discuss politics, email me.
No way. Whenever you or one of your ilk spout off
inaccurately, there ain't a chance in hell that it will go
unchallanged herein. There are too many young people
reading this who might be swept in, by lies, manipulated
figures and half-truths, into believing that sort of
thing, and it requires correction in the same arena
in which it was vomited out.
Although I often allude to politics in this newsgroup, I
have rarely expressed a political opinion that wasn't either
A.) relevant to the conversation at hand or
B.) desperately needed as a return to sanity after some gibberesh
has been posted here. (B would apply in this case.)
I hardly think that qualifies as shoving it down someone's throat.
In fact, having been visiting ng's for 18 months now, I can't
recall anyone shoving ANYTHING down anyone else's
throat. Certainly not mine. Funny, I seem to have a choice
in which threads I read, and I can delete everything which
does not interest me. Perhaps, unknown to me, some servers
do not carry these sorts of features. There's no throat shoving on AOL,
though (well, maybe, in a virtual sense, in those private chat rooms
I keep hearing about, but I suspect that that's a different type of
"shoving").
Bob "Friends don't let Friends Vote Republican" Purse
Neohippie
>Of course your youth will last forever and ever, eh?
Oh, come on, you don't think that I actually believe that, do you?
Sorry for that poorly thought-out rant back there. It's just that,
instinctually, I've always had this tendency to believe that what the world
needs (and what it always needs) is a good revolution.
I can't explain it any better than I can explain why I have this huge affection
for this old British rock band some of you might have heard of.
----------------------------
If one person does it, they think you're crazy. If two people do it, they think
you're both crazy. If three people do it, it's a conspiracy, but if fifty
people do it, it's a movement.
Neohippie
>Does the phrase
>"60s generation" come to mind at all? Because they are the ones who are
>running the big businesses, and to some extent, the government, today.
>
The whole generation were not all hippies. They were probably even a minority.
You look in a high school yearbook from, say, 1968, like I have, and most of
them are normal-looking, clean-cut kids.
You've got to be crazy to think that everybody was a hippie back then (uh-oh, I
just called you crazy. I didn't mean it, don't get mad!). Lots of people
weren't. AND, some of the ones that were still believe in that stuff (not all,
some). I know, I've met some. But they're mostly too busy with jobs and kids
and stuff like that. That's why I tried to explain what I think young people
are for.
'Course what do I know? Not much. You could always use on me the old excuse
people use when youngsters like me do or say something they don't agree with,
'she can't help it, that's how her parents raised her', cuz my mom has told me
how glad she is that I think this way, and wishes other teenyboppers would
listen to me and go hold signs in front of a nuclear power plant or something.
:-)
HoneyBear
No way. Did you expect America to stay the way it was before the Beatles
forever? It was going to change one day. If they didn't come along and show
American teenagers new ideas and such, would a bunch of fads in music and
life now in general be the way it is now? They just started a change, they
didn't make it worse. I believe they helped, if anything. Give them credit
for some things.
Steve
RasMaster wrote:
> Although I often allude to politics in this newsgroup, I
> have rarely expressed a political opinion that wasn't either
> A.) relevant to the conversation at hand or
> B.) desperately needed as a return to sanity after some gibberesh
> has been posted here. (B would apply in this case.)
>
> Bob "Friends don't let Friends Vote Republican" Purse
I've read the book, seen Pete Seeger, and I try to correct wrong
political thinking, too. You think you've heard all the arguments, so
you close your mind to be done with it. Not me. I'm still open; still
waiting to hear something other than name calling. I'd prefer it
privately, but if you insist, post it to the group.
You're post lacks substance, and you're trying desperately to "show off"
in front of the world. No biggie, but at least you could put some
thought into it for entertainment value, if nothing else.
We could go round and round on this thing. Do you really want to?
--
***sporter***
(Friends let friends vote anyway they choose. It's a free country, isn't
it?)
Richard Cook
On 7 Dec 1997 17:56:08 GMT, neoh...@aol.com (Neohippie) wrote:
>The whole generation were not all hippies. They were probably even a minority.
>You look in a high school yearbook from, say, 1968, like I have, and most of
>them are normal-looking, clean-cut kids.
True. (Although SOME of the clean-cut ones were closet hippies.)
>
>You've got to be crazy to think that everybody was a hippie back then (uh-oh, I
>just called you crazy. I didn't mean it, don't get mad!). Lots of people
>weren't.
Yeah. Like those idiots running the gov't. Remember that straight
guy on the Student Council? Yep, he's now a member of the County
Commisioners.
>AND, some of the ones that were still believe in that stuff (not all,
>some). I know, I've met some.
Like me.
> But they're mostly too busy with jobs and kids
>and stuff like that.
Like me.
>That's why I tried to explain what I think young people
>are for.
>
Keep on doing it, 'cause you're RIGHT!
>'Course what do I know? Not much. You could always use on me the old excuse
>people use when youngsters like me do or say something they don't agree with,
>'she can't help it, that's how her parents raised her', cuz my mom has told me
>how glad she is that I think this way, and wishes other teenyboppers would
>listen to me and go hold signs in front of a nuclear power plant or something.
>:-)
A few weeks ago my family was having dinner with my best friend's
family (he and I go back to 1966 or so) when his 18 year old daughter
blurted out that she was going to attend a rally demonstrating against
a local building supply company. Seems they were dealing in rare and
exotic woods and she and some others didn't think that was a good
thing. Not a big political movement, to be sure, but they're on the
right track. Same as you, Mandy.
>----------------------------
>If one person does it, they think you're crazy. If two people do it, they think
>you're both crazy. If three people do it, it's a conspiracy, but if fifty
>people do it, it's a movement.
Uh, too much Arlo on your turkey this Thanksgiving? :-)
-richard cook-
Ob. Beatles: "You say you want a revolution, well..."
John M. Calabro
> A few weeks ago my family was having dinner with my best friend's
> family (he and I go back to 1966 or so) when his 18 year old daughter
> blurted out that she was going to attend a rally demonstrating against
> a local building supply company. Seems they were dealing in rare and
> exotic woods and she and some others didn't think that was a good
> thing. Not a big political movement, to be sure, but they're on the
> right track. Same as you, Mandy.
Save the trees. What are you gonna build your house out of, MEAT?
Thank you, Albert Einstein.
John Calabro
http://rfny.simplenet.com Radio Free New York FUN!
Will kennington
>>>evary thing has changed dramatically, face it. this is todays world,
>>>evan tomorows, but not yestardays.
>
but it's happaning so look to enhancing it not goin on abaut how good
things were before.
>>>this is it thogh, its that bein born out of wedlock used to be a
>>>problem, but it isant such a bad thing any moare. its aceptid now, and
>>>so it aint a problem.
>
>Just because something is "accepted" does not mean it isn't a problem.
bein born out of wedlock is not seen as a problam any more, thats the
point. it is acepted and therefore does not not course a problem to
those who acept it.
>
>>> i am 18 and i have a son, he's 2. i am not
>>>marryed. many adults disaproove of this, not many poeple my age do. and
>>>it's US who are takin ovar, our responisbilitys, relatinships, problams
>>>etc. NOT adults. society is shiftin and this is a good thing. religion
>>>is on a popularity decline, religious morals are not applied any more,
>>>but when were they set?
>
>First of all, if you can handle being 18 and having a son, great. More power
>to you. I have nothing but respect for those who take responsibility for their
>actions, and make a serious go at it. And sure, many good people have come
>from single parent upbringings. Jesse Jackson comes to mind.
my parents were killed when i was 7, does that make me a person who
wants to kill someone or something like that? no.
> However, the
>fact is, most poverty is linked to unwed mothers, particularly unwed teen
>mothers.
there aint nothin wrong with my son's mothar.
>Study after study has shown that their is a direct link between out
>of wedlock births and future job instability, use of drugs, and crime. Again,
>there are always exceptions. But for most kids who are, and will be, born into
>the situation your son has been born into, life will be difficult to say the
>least.
but me and increasin numbars of poeple like me are changin stuff. i aint
goin to let my son have a difficult life. someone killed by fathar and
gave me a hell of a life. that aint goin to happan to my son.
>
>>Sadly, the same movements that were about "questioning" the old ways, are the
>>movements that led to increased drug use, crime, and teen pregnancy. It is
>>called moral relativism, and it may be the true legacy of the 60s, and a
>>dangerous one at that. But we'll let future generations sort out exactly what
>>went wrong.
>>
>>>she was rite, 'old ways' arent aplicabal anymore, but this is a good
>>>thing.
>
>Exactly what "old ways" aren't applicable Will?
evarything changes, from music to how poeple accept things to
relationships to fucking phone boxes. i dont mean to insult you though.
> Back in the 50s most people in
>this country didn't lock their doors at night. Was that a bad way to live? Is
>that something that you are happy is no longer the case?
i dont mind, its not a problem. i aint condoning crime but you have to
be resonabal abaut it. it isant becuase of the poeple personally, just
the times are changing, like they always have. my grandfathar didant
undarstand things my parents did, my parents wouldant have undarstood
things i do, i wont undarstand things my son will do.
>>>society shood advance throgh education? out of our control. im dyslexic
>>>and almost completely innumerate. my education was at inner city
>>>comprehensives. i coodant demand a betar quality of teachin aged 11, and
>>>i coodant aford a fee payin school, so i have no education. therfore
>>>your sayin i cant advance society in anyway but as it is and i am doin
>>>very well for myself.
>
>That's great. Again, more power to you. Obviuosly Will, you are highly
>intelligent,
absolutly not, iam as thick as pig shit and i know it.
>and capable of using your innate intelligence to make a good life
>for yourself.
depends how you judge a good life. i am happy now becuase i have got
more than i have evar had since my parents were killed.
>But what about kids of average intelligence who need that
>diploma to get a decent career off the ground? I've worked in inner city
>schools, they are a nightmare. And do you know why? Because in the 60s, the
>way the schools were run in NYC was changed.
i cant realy speak abaut nyc schools becuase i only know abaut inner
london schools.
> These used to be among the best
>public schools in the nation, today they are crap. And all because of the 60s
>movement to give "power back to the people". But that didn't happen, just a
>lot of special interest "community" leaders with their own little agendas took
>over.
>
>And I would still suggest that you consider furthering your own education,
>because yes, it is still the best way to get ahead and make a difference.
i wood need to re start secondary school with 11 year olds and that
isant possibal. i have no gcses or alevels or anything so i cant furthur
nothing. and like i said, you seem to think i am clevar. its taken me
abaut 20 minutes to rite this much, not cos iam slow typer, cos i have
to think abaut words and what goes were.
>
>>>i extreemly respect my brothars and sistars and frends, i take
>>>responsibitiy for evarythin i do. id go to the end of the earth for my
>>>brothars and ive spent many nites in cells for things iave done.
>
>Great, and I know not all kids your age are disrespectful of other humans.
>However, after my experiences in the public schoools, I gotta tell ya, it's
>changed. Even MY generation had more respect than yours, and my generation was
>a pretty rude and selfish bunch. I don't see this getting better as times goes
>on.
each genarashion isant goin to respect the last, only resent them. that
will happan evary time.
>
>>> i dont
>>>want to return to an era when things were not discuses and socity
>>>brandid poeple.
>
>Neither do I, I am merely pointing out that these problems we have today are
>real, and IMO, a result of the lax attitudes towards discipline and morality
>that the 60s bred.
naaa, it wood have changed anyway. nothing or no one can be blamed, it
always was goin to hapan.
>
>>>as we are takin ovar, (dont meen that to sound like oldar poeple are
>>>dying and not needid, sorry!) we need to re establish our own vershion
>>>of society. we rely have to change or there is no point. things change
>>>all the time. anyone who doesant want this... well they sholdant realy
>>>be hear becuase this is a modern means of comunicashion.
>
>Fair enough will. If you can tell me that your entire generation is as
>knowledgable, respectful, decent, sensitive, and intelligent as you appear to
>be, then I will not be concerned for the future of our society. But I bet even
>you can't say such a thing.
>
corse i cant, but then i aint that good. sertainly nevar been called
intelegant before! a group of poeple born in the same time frame aint
evar goin to all be the same. there will be good ones there will be bad
ones.
>Sure, you're here on the Internet. Very modern, progressive, blah blah blah.
that aint what i meant.
>But what about all the kids in this country who aren't? All the kids in this
>country who will go to bed tonight hungry and in a gutter with their single
>mom? All the kids in this country who will shoot another kid tonight? These
>are very real situations, not something we imagine. And they are a LOT worse
>than they were prior to the 60s.
>
you changed tha, i was on abaut poeple who are afraid of change. it is
time for a revolution. its always time for a revolution. thats my
favriat word in the world. any problem can be sorted if its handald
right, it just depends on government, and if they cant handal it,
revolt!
>>>so are you blamin the 60s genarashion for the moral and social decline
>>>of the world, or todays youth?
>
>For the most part todays youth are a product of the 60s generation. I won't
>blame the "generation" though, but the prevailing philosophy of the time:
>Moral Relativism.
that was then, its time for a rEVOlution now.
Chris Dashiell
John M. Calabro <giga...@geocities.com> wrote
> Save the trees. What are you gonna build your house out of, MEAT?
And where are you going to breathe when the forests have
been cut down? MARS?
Thank you, short-sighted right wing nutjob.
Dashiell
John M. Calabro
Chris Dashiell wrote:
> In the 50s, black people were still being lynched. Segregation was
> accepted. And the "conservatives" wanted it to stay that way. Yeah,
> what a great golden age that was.
Who said it was a 'golden age'? I pointed out that violent crime was on
a steady decline up until the early 60's, when the radicals took over
the campuses, and the liberals took over the criminal 'justice' system!
FYI - Segregation is alive and well today - on college campuses,
practiced by black students!
> In the 50s, right-wing antisemite nutjobs hijacked the Constitution
> and instituted witch hunts. Becoming mirror images of the Stalinists
> they hated
Holy cow - what have you neen smoking? The Stalin and the Stalinists
MURDERED 50 million of their own people! Who became 'mirror images' of
them, again?
> Wake up, you whining sniveling right-
> wing gasbags...you fucking morons.
Typical rantings from a typical left-wing radical. What a pleeasant
type of guy you are!
John Calabro
http://rfny.simplenet.com Home of the radical umnderground broadcasters
at Radio Free New York!
John M. Calabro
Chris Dashiell wrote:
What a sense of humor!
John Calabro
http://rfny.simplenet.com Home of the revolutionary pirates at Radio
Free New York!
BEN
John M. Calabro wrote:
>Save the trees. What are you gonna build your house out of, MEAT?
How about bricks or cement?
Why is it that when a person dies its a tragedy, but when another
animal like a chimp or possum dies as a result of logging it's somehow
"good for business"?
*BEN*
Eric Johnson
>as we are takin ovar, (dont meen that to sound like oldar poeple are
>>>dying and not needid, sorry!) we need to re establish our own vershion
>>>of society. we rely have to change or there is no point. things change
>>>all the time. anyone who doesant want this... well they sholdant realy
>>>be hear becuase this is a modern means of comunicashion.
Ok, this is a joke, right? You have to try to write this badly. But if
it isn't, I can assure you that anyone as badly educated as you appear
to be, not to mention stupid, since just by osmosis you should be a
better speller and logician, will never take over anything, except maybe
a dumpster. The smart and the educated will inherit the earth.
-Eric
Tom
>Ok, this is a joke, right? You have to try to write this badly. But if
>it isn't, I can assure you that anyone as badly educated as you appear
>to be, not to mention stupid, since just by osmosis you should be a
>better speller and logician, will never take over anything, except maybe
>a dumpster. The smart and the educated will inherit the earth.
>
That would let you out because of your inability to read though a simple
post to a newsgroup. If you look it up, Will said he was dyslexic so either
your reading was so superficial that you missed it completely (yet you
thought you were qualified to comment. We don't need any more poorly
informed people running the world, thank you), you read it and you didn't
make the connection (either ignorance or faulty logic skills on your part)
or you're just a mean spirited little troll who decided to have a bit of fun
at someone else's expense. Which is it?
Neohippie
>Seems they were dealing in rare and
>> exotic woods and she and some others didn't think that was a good
>> thing. Not a big political movement, to be sure, but they're on the
>> right track.
>Save the trees. What are you gonna build your house out of, MEAT?
>
>Thank you, Albert Einstein.
>
>
No, instead of using exotic woods such as mahogony (sp?), which comes from the
rainforest, they could always use reforested wood from our nations carefully
managed forests.
I did a research paper on forestry, so I know. :-)
Neohippie
>John M. Calabro wrote:
>>Save the trees. What are you gonna build your house out of, MEAT?
>
>
>How about bricks or cement?
No no no, not rigid enough, it would crumble if you build it too tall. Besides,
what about mining?
>Why is it that when a person dies its a tragedy, but when another
>animal like a chimp or possum dies as a result of logging it's somehow
>"good for business"?
It's not good for business because thankfully quite a few people like animals,
so they kill the animals and try not to let you know about it. As for the other
people, well, they've got this whole dominion over the animals complex. If
that's true, then I think they're abusing their power.
Listen, biology (including environmental science) is one of my favorite
subjects, and so I've done quite a bit of research on it over the years (on my
own too, isn't that nerdy?), and I am sure that human beings and other species
can get along.
Oh yeah, I'm gonna be the next Dianne Fossey :-) (except for the end, that
would not be good).
Will kennington
>Ok, this is a joke, right? You have to try to write this badly. But if
>it isn't, I can assure you that anyone as badly educated as you appear
>to be, not to mention stupid, since just by osmosis you should be a
>better speller and logician, will never take over anything, except maybe
>a dumpster. The smart and the educated will inherit the earth.
>
furstly, it aint bad educashion, it's dyslexia (like i said.) herd of
it?
second, i used to try writin proparly payin close atention an lookin up
words an stuff but it took so long and was so borin that i gave up.
thirdley, i had no educashion to speak of (like i said) throgh no falt
of my own and i aint some rich fuckin beck who can afford fee payin
schools, so it aint my falt iam so far set back.
4 of my brothars out of 5 are dyslexic and one of my sistars, and they
do these things; architect, government employee, pe studant, and art
studant the othar one is at secondary school.
you can sit there and think of clevar things to say safe in the noledge
that i cant do anythin abaut it. try not bein abal to fill in a form.
its twats like you who imbares their countrys.
john f kennington
In article <348D8E...@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, Eric Johnson <Eric.Johnso
n...@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> writes
>>as we are takin ovar, (dont meen that to sound like oldar poeple are
>>>>dying and not needid, sorry!) we need to re establish our own vershion
>>>>of society. we rely have to change or there is no point. things change
>>>>all the time. anyone who doesant want this... well they sholdant realy
>>>>be hear becuase this is a modern means of comunicashion.
>
>
>
>it isn't, I can assure you that anyone as badly educated as you appear
>to be, not to mention stupid, since just by osmosis you should be a
>better speller and logician, will never take over anything, except maybe
>a dumpster. The smart and the educated will inherit the earth.
>
>-Eric
anythin you can mock him for you can also say to me. fuckin try it thogh
and you'll be in trobal.
simon kennington
>Ok, this is a joke, right? You have to try to write this badly. But if
>it isn't, I can assure you that anyone as badly educated as you appear
>to be, not to mention stupid, since just by osmosis you should be a
>better speller and logician, will never take over anything, except maybe
>a dumpster. The smart and the educated will inherit the earth.
>
>-Eric
you dont realise what a mistake you just made do you?
fool. never mind. i'm sure you wont be missed.
Eric Johnson
----------
>
>
>
>Ok, this is a joke, right? You have to try to write this badly. But if
>it isn't, I can assure you that anyone as badly educated as you appear
>to be, not to mention stupid, since just by osmosis you should be a
>better speller and logician, will never take over anything, except maybe
>a dumpster. The smart and the educated will inherit the earth.
>
>-Eric
you are a fuckin sad arsed nob with nothin betar to do that atempt to
get me cross for fun. not much of a life yo've got rely is it/? if thats
what you do for fun? i aint angry like you wantid, i just feal sorry for
you and your sad lital life.
i'll tel you one thing, when you cant defend yorself by bein clevar, you
lern othar ways. i was raised on the street looked aftar by brothar, and
i'm fuckin tellin you i can fite. bet your the kind of person who is
scared to walk down dark streets arent yo? well its me thats down em
twatface, and you try sayin one more thing insultin me becuase i have a
medical problem inabalin me to spell, you'll fubkin no abaut it.
wi...@utcalcis.demon.co.uk
Change nospam to utcalcis for return email address
Sadly, your inability to spell is not the problem. I did not realize that
you have dyslexia, and I'm sorry about that, but bad spelling doesn't
account for your violent anti-socialism. After all, plenty of very
accomplished people are dyslexic. Tom Cruise comes to mind.
It's too bad life has dealt you the cards it has, but your response to your
predicament seals your fate.
You can change your life. You can get help for your dyslexia. You can find
support groups to help you deal with your anger. But you have to get out
of your 'victim' mode and act on it. And if you have other issues you'll
have to confront them, too.
At the risk of insulting you again, I will say that violence is a stupid way
to deal with your problems. Violence will only lead to violence.
Bottom line is, hiding down those alley ways will just end you up in jail or
dead.
-Eric
Tom Nagy
The white man ruined America.
This continent was heaven on earth before Columbus arrived. Just ask any native american you know.
Tom Nagy - Beatles Fan
tgl...@ix.netcom.com
Steve
There were no taxes, everyone went around half naked, and the women did
all the work. And we thought we could improve on a system like that.
--
***sporter***
Neohippie
>There were no taxes,
Depends on the tribe. Some tribes, especially the really advanced ones in South
and Central America, did have some sort of taxes.
> everyone went around half naked,
What's wrong with that?
> and the women did
>all the work.
You don't think hunting down two-ton bison and killing them with pointy sticks
is work?
ObBeatles: "If you play "Maybe I'm Amazed" backwards, you'll hear a really
ripping recipie for lentil soup!"
Mandy
-------------------------
"Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship
Jesus Christ."
Steve
Neohippie wrote:
>
> >There were no taxes,
>
> Depends on the tribe. Some tribes, especially the really advanced ones in South
> and Central America, did have some sort of taxes.
>
> > everyone went around half naked,
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> > and the women did
> >all the work.
>
> You don't think hunting down two-ton bison and killing them with pointy sticks
> is work?
>
It was a joke. I forgot my smiley face. I've seen "Dances with Wolves"
twice, so I really know all about the subject. :)
--
***sporter***