The Pepsi generation
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>has the
>> >feminine gestures and the disinterest in sports. I'm the one
>who was called
>
>And you are also one of the ones who have the psychological
>strength to endure and not turn violent...a strength that was
>not possessed by the two in Littleton. You are, to my way of
>thinking, a most fortunate man. We live in a society that has
>been taught not to accept differences and that makes it very
>hard on those that go their separate paths. We really need to
>teach children, from a very early age, to be more accepting and
>much less judgmental.
>
I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. In my parents' generation,
there wasn't any violence like there is coming out now. There was more respect
for authority with less tolerance for differences. I also believe that there
was more morality. There was also more of a sense of needing to serve a
greater or common good than serving one's own interests as I would be willing
to bet there were more church-goers in the 1940's than there are now.
Nowadays, with the touchy-feely self-esteem building school agenda, we do
appear to have more tolerance for people's differences but we also seem to be
more permissive of almost any kind of behaviour. There are more kids nowadays
accepting homosexual people in societies. What is alarming to me is the class
stratification which is appearing in the schools (in the form of dress, cars
and attitudes). We seem to be settling conflicts and differences in more of an
in-your-face attitude than was done in the past and I really have to wonder if
this doesn't stem from our over-indulgence of how "great" our kids are. Are we
placing so much emphasis on self-esteem and ego that kids feel they need to
defend everything that attacks their psyche? Are we placing too much emphasis
on the individual and losing the idea of serving humanity somewhere in there?
How do we communicate a message of morality and respect for others? I have
done a lot of thinking on this in the past 10 years or so. The boomers
revolted against the establishment in the late 60's and early 70's. That's
great. There were a lot of repressive features about society then. I'm all for
sexual freedom, knowing one's self better and more questioning of our
government's interests. I am for more freedom in general, which is what we
have achieved by freeing ourselves from the more rigid institutions of my
parent's generation. We are more free to be who we want to be and do what we
want to do and worship what we want to worship now. But, and this is crucial,
with this freedom comes responsibility. If one takes away responsibility for
one's self from society, which is what was done in my parents' day, that
responsibility doesn't disappear. It needs to be assumed by the individual. I
have a feeling that the majority of society is lazy and/or ignorant and
doesn't want to be bothered with the responsibility. Either they don't want to
be responsible or they don't have enough brains to be responsible.
As for morality, we are definitely more open in terms of allowing people to
pursue whichever religion they wish to pursue. I live in a town of 50,000
people in the middle of the corn belt and they are building a mosque (sp?)
here. I would like to see that done in the 1940's. I'm not pushing any
religion on anyone else as I myself am no longer a Christian (I just know I
believe in God), but without a religion where do people find morality? A good
portion of this country was some flavour of Christian for most of its
existence and that Christianity served as a rock of support for morality and
respect for others. It was also extremely oppressive and divisive. Now it no
longer has such a dominant influence. What is that to be replaced with?
Without morals and without responsibility, how do we continue to function as a
civilized society?
Things to think about,
Dave
Sasha Stone
> I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. In my parents' generation,
> there wasn't any violence like there is coming out now. There was more respect
> for authority with less tolerance for differences. I also believe that there
> was more morality. There was also more of a sense of needing to serve a
> greater or common good than serving one's own interests as I would be willing
> to bet there were more church-goers in the 1940's than there are now.
>
Well, there was a big difference between then and now- mainly, the World
Wars. We were all aware of human suffering. Our teens have way way way
too much time on their hands.
> Nowadays, with the touchy-feely self-esteem building school agenda, we do
> appear to have more tolerance for people's differences but we also seem to be
> more permissive of almost any kind of behaviour. There are more kids nowadays
> accepting homosexual people in societies. What is alarming to me is the class
> stratification which is appearing in the schools (in the form of dress, cars
> and attitudes). We seem to be settling conflicts and differences in more of an
> in-your-face attitude than was done in the past and I really have to wonder if
> this doesn't stem from our over-indulgence of how "great" our kids are. Are we
> placing so much emphasis on self-esteem and ego that kids feel they need to
> defend everything that attacks their psyche? Are we placing too much emphasis
> on the individual and losing the idea of serving humanity somewhere in there?
>
Good point. I wonder that myself. Your pet topic, the Boomers, are
raising kids in the post-therapy culture where everything is, How do I
feel? Am I happy? Because they were living with denial in their families
about abuse, about alcoholism - let's not totally forget that. But, it's
true, it does lead to self-centered thinking (what about me? What about
my needs?, etc.) We live in a medicated culture where kids are put on
drugs because their parents can't handle them. Our kids are
overstimulated by TV, information, video games and yet we're all becoming
more and more isolated from each other. I don't think parents are there
for their kids, even though they talk a good game. I think they're out
there soul-searching.
> believe in God), but without a religion where do people find morality? A good
> portion of this country was some flavour of Christian for most of its
> existence and that Christianity served as a rock of support for morality and
> respect for others. It was also extremely oppressive and divisive. Now it no
> longer has such a dominant influence. What is that to be replaced with?
> Without morals and without responsibility, how do we continue to function as a
> civilized society?
>
>
Yeah, great point. Good question. Religion was invented for a reason.
That is to say, imo, that human beings with an inclination to believe in a
higher power were more likely to survive, create offspring, etc.
Therefore, the need for religion is a highly evolved necessity (otherwise,
when you get to thinking about things, life seems totally and completely
pointless - the curse of having high intelligence). So what do we do now
that the cat's out of the bag, so to speak? Probably we're swing back and
renew our faith (which is what has happened throughout history, no?). So
prepare yourself for another Nixon.
Does this not remind you of 1968? The death of Bobby Kennedy, Martin
Luther King?
What was the solution? A return to religion, to safety.
Sasha
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Dave Edsall - The Tauminator wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. In my parents' generation,
>> there wasn't any violence like there is coming out now. There was more
>>respect
>> for authority with less tolerance for differences. I also believe that there
>> was more morality. There was also more of a sense of needing to serve a
>> greater or common good than serving one's own interests as I would be
>>willing
>> to bet there were more church-goers in the 1940's than there are now.
>>
>
>Well, there was a big difference between then and now- mainly, the World
>Wars. We were all aware of human suffering. Our teens have way way way
>too much time on their hands.
I'm commenting more on the statement Sasha is commenting on rather
then Sasha's own statement.
I laugh everytime I hear someone say how things have got so out of
hand, and no one used to kill people like they're doing today. So, to keep
this somewhat cinematically focused, the media has done one thing for sure.
They've made people aware of what's been going on all along. Things
haven't got worse or better. They've remained pretty much the same, with
the only difference being that now you hear about "it" minutes after "it's"
happened.
If you think about how communication has changed our lives and
perception of the world, or need an example, take the last two wars (if you
call them that). It seemed more like watching a miniseries then news
reports. The shooting in Colorado probably was heard first by more poeple
around the world then it was people in the same town.
So, do the movies and media effect us? Sure they do, but I'd say
they effect us more in how we react to things (making more legislation)
then by how we react to things (going postal). An incedent becomes
nationwide gossip within minutes and with this gossip comes the cry for
change or new laws where none is really needed. Face it, shit happens. It
always has and always will. The new laws and legislation (brought about by
media coverage) will only server to stiffle people who were already (law)
abiding good people.
Ok, now for Sasha's comment. "Our teens have way...too much time
on their hands." Compared to what? Teens are already spending more time
in school then I ever did. (ok, no jibes from the peanut gallery). When I
was in highschool it was required that we take 5 classes, each 55 minutes
long. I was in and out of school in about 5 hours. Talk about free time,
I had pleanty. As a manager of a business a few years ago I remember
trying to schedule highschool students. It was a nightmare. Anything from
about 5pm on was ok, before that forget it.
Jeff
CariAnnV
> I laugh everytime I hear someone say how things have got so out of
>hand, and no one used to kill people like they're doing today.
Right. Just 50 years ago they killed Mussolini in horrific and public display.
2,000 years ago crucifixions could not have been more public. People were
also eaten by lions. Beheadings. Burned at the stake.
Why weren't the teenagers then going around crucifying their classmates (well
possibly they were - people had such short life spans they have probably always
been the executioners to some extent) - feeding them to lions, beheading them,
burning them at a stake while all looked on horrified?
Do you know how long it would take to pull off even one of those things? And
it makes copycat killing pretty difficult. The first real look of it in
America is with the lynch mobs, so easy to string someone up a tree - I'm SURE
the kids learned quickly and did kill those they could hold on to.
But with a gun. With a gun you have hundreds dead in minutes. And bombs.
Thousands.
Tell me you can't see that's the one main ingredient here.
Carolyne
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>But with a gun. With a gun you have hundreds dead in minutes. And bombs.
>Thousands.
>
>Tell me you can't see that's the one main ingredient here.
Oh get real! I don't know of any incedent where someone with a gun
killed hundreds. Maybe as many as 30....maybe, but not hundreds. And
bombs? Even the Oklahoma City bombing only killed around 167?, not
thousands. There have been only two bombs I know about that have killed
thousands and these weren't set off by teenagers having a bad day.
Instead, they were a respounce to a long drawnout war. But that's a whole
other debate that's been hashed over time and again.
Jeff M
barbrose
minutes. And bombs.
> >Thousands.
> >
> >Tell me you can't see that's the one main ingredient here.
> Oh get real! I don't know of any incedent where
someone with a gun
> killed hundreds. Maybe as many as 30....maybe, but not
hundreds. And
> bombs? Even the Oklahoma City bombing only killed around
167?, not
> thousands. There have been only two bombs I know about that
have killed
> thousands and these weren't set off by teenagers having a bad
day.
> Instead, they were a respounce to a long drawnout war. But
that's a whole
> other debate that's been hashed over time and again.
>
> Jeff M
Here's a trivia question for you....and no cheating by looking
for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of the
1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
Barbara
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>Here's a trivia question for you....and no cheating by looking
>for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of the
>1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
>
>Barbara
Wasn't it a gasing or something in a Japaneese tube?
Jeff M
Sasha Stone
>thoughts to the world:
>
>>Here's a trivia question for you....and no cheating by looking
>>for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of the
>>1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
>>
>>Barbara
>
Come on, Barb, spill.
Sasha
barbrose
> From: Liquo...@AOL.COM
> To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: The Pepsi generation
> Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 5:30 PM
>
> In a message dated 4/29/99 2:27:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> barb...@BELLSOUTH.NET writes:
>
> << > >>1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
> > >>
> > >>Barbara >>
>
>
> -Robert
NO
barbrose
looking
> >>for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of
the
> >>
> >>Barbara
> I vote for an Earthquake. In Japan? Mexico City?
>
> Come on, Barb, spill.
>
> Sasha
NO
barbrose
looking
> >for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of
the
> >1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
> >
> >Barbara
> Wasn't it a gasing or something in a Japaneese tube?
>
> Jeff M
NO
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>>At 12:35 PM -0700 4/29/99, barbrose Fired a few neurons to put these
>>thoughts to the world:
>>
>>>for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of the
>>>1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
>>>
>>>Barbara
>>
No, the earthquake happened in 85-86ish, and was foretold by
Nastrodomas(sp) as the new city that would be destroyed in May of 1985. He
was to damn close for my comfort level.
Jeff
CariAnnV
> Oh get real! I don't know of any incedent where someone with a gun
>killed hundreds. Maybe as many as 30....maybe, but not hundreds. And
>bombs? Even the Oklahoma City bombing only killed around 167?, not
>thousands. There have been only two bombs I know about that have killed
>thousands and these weren't set off by teenagers having a bad day.
>Instead, they were a respounce to a long drawnout war. But that's a whole
>other debate that's been hashed over time and again.
>
>Jeff M
Jeff - I don't think you are mature enough to be having this discussion, so I
won't be answering any more of your notes.
Carolyne
barbrose
"man" caused?
> If natural, then I'd guess (like I think it was Kristen who
said) something
> like an earthquake, but I thought the Mexican one was back in
80something.
> Maybe a hurricane?
>
> Jeff
NO (but it was natural...does that help)
Liquo...@aol.com
barb...@BELLSOUTH.NET writes:
<< > >>1990's killed the greatest number of people in one day?
> >>
> >>Barbara >>
Rwanda massacre.
-Robert
Jeff Miles
>looking
>> >for the answer on the web. :-) What event in the decade of
>the
>> >
>> >Barbara
>
>
>>
>> Jeff M
>
>
>NO
Oh, did you mean natural events included or something "man" caused?