It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Continental Divide

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
(Everyone please forgive me for taking so long to reply)

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I don't know if that's true or not. There are several factors that can aid or retard an accelerated societal decay.

The Internet and instant communications can work both ways. On one hand, information about the abuses of those in power can spread wider and faster than ever before. But on the other hand, so can propaganda. A decreasing average intelligence could actually cause the decline to take longer, because it means the average person will be less capable of understanding their condition. The modern gadgets we are surrounded by present a distraction as well, increasing the time span of the decay cycle. But the addiction to those devices makes them a trigger point.

I have personally been expecting the collapse of the United States for some years now, but it has always surprised me and managed to postpone the inevitable. I've given up on guessing.

TheRedneck




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I usually stay out of such conversations because I am a guy. If I may , I would like to offer one observation. In New Zealand Women are grossly under represented on Corporate/Company boards. Rightfully there has been calls for the situation to be rectified. What bothers me is those who most want to the issue addressed don't take a real look at the roots of the problem. By that I mean there is no analysis of what percentage of Women undertake relevant business degrees. Clearly attacking the top of the tree without examining the roots isn't the way to go.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

I think you're right. I know very few people who don't live in some kind of fear, whether it be fear of losing their job, fear of the police, fear of societal anger, etc.

Coincidentally, this can be a cause of something else we have seen manifesting in the US: obesity. Fear equates to stress, and the human body cannot determine whether stress is physical or emotional. It's all the same where the body is concerned. Stress causes the release of epinephrines (like adrenaline) that speed the body up in preparation for the fight or flight syndrome. They also tend to cause the body to store energy.

Have you ever noticed how many smokers gain weight when they stop? That's because nicotine, through it's action mimicking acetylcholine, controls the activity of epinephrines. When someone who is using the nicotine to combat an overproduction of epinephrines stops, the epinephrines take over, causing an accelerated fight-or-flight response. They experience all the symptoms of physical stress: increased emotional activity, high blood pressure, restlessness, and weight gain.

High blood pressure (hypertension) itself is an epidemic now... same situation. I was just on a beta-blocker for a short while, and it literally stopped the action of epinephrines. When I got off, the sudden avalanche of them had me climbing the walls and wanting to fight fence posts until the levels could adjust. Those beta-blockers are popular hypertension drugs (pretty much anything ending in "olol" is a beta-blocker). They don't block the production of epinephrines, only their actions.

That may be why it has been so hard to stamp out recreational drug use. Many illicit drugs are used to combat stress in one way or another. We live today in a society that is so complex and is so deeply imbibed with worry and stress, that we are literally killing ourselves.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And I've had some time myself to get back online here.
Just a couple things to contribute today.

About cycles. Years ago I read about the difference between traditional "women's" work and "men's" work. That old saying about a "Woman's work is never done" is true. Female work is considered "cyclical"; you do something that needs to be repeated, over and over. Dusting, laundry, meals. You dust, the dust returns, you dust, the dust returns.

Male work OTOH is a job that is completed with that act. A car needs to be repaired; it gets fixed. A workshop project builds something, an end product.

IMO women and men need to be able to do both and not necessarily have roles assigned and should be allowed to do what they do best in a relationship, whether that is in a marriage or in a society.

It could be that the Art of War is a "male" type of work; a battle planned and executed. Start, finish, complete. It could be that the Art of Peace is "female", as Peace is something that needs to be constantly nourished, to avoid War. I heard a pastor on the radio years ago talk about Jesus being the embodiment of both male and female. The Yin Yang? The idea of "opposites" being necessary in society, but in balance, harmony.

Ok, next thing.



We live today in a society that is so complex and is so deeply imbibed with worry and stress, that we are literally killing ourselves.


Yep. The Rat Park experiment comes to my mind. Environment comes into play.

My BFF shared with me recently just how bad her health had been before she retired (she tends to keep bad news to herself). Apparently she had been suffering from debilitating conditions, her body just breaking down. A year after retirement she no longer had any of those conditions. The only thing different in her life was that she retired; exercise, diet was the same. Her doctor just shrugged her head and said, yes, not having the stress in your life probably has something to do with it. Ya think?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   


But that theory presupposes something: that people will use critical thinking to make such important decisions. According to this cycle, that may well not be a valid assumption.


No doubt this election has more to do with emotional thinking than critical thinking. Especially when you have two such distasteful candidates. It's even more clouded, because using critical thinking, I can't fervently support ANY candidate running (including 3rd party ones). So, it's not even about SUPPORTING a candidate, as it is OPPOSING the most distasteful one.

What is more surprising, a candidate was actually CAUGHT rigging the primary, so much so that the party chair resigned (and then joined that candidate's campaign!) And yet, those who supported the one cheated out of it, STILL voice support for her, because the alternative is just that distasteful to them. Truly, critical thinking is simply out the door here....

He's not much better. While his candid remarks are refreshing, they also don't mesh well with the office, or the job of basically being the most important mediator in the world. But, deals are his thing, and that's really what the office is all about. The funny part is, the two mostly agree on the issues young voters care most about. And they agree, because these issues are politically DEAD issues. Abortion? Dead issue, matter of law. Gay marriage? Dead issue, matter of law. (and both candidates have previously changed their positions on them).

Then, they are both basically crooks. So that's fun.

For me, it came down to which one actually cares about the country's success. Here's where she falls short, because she appears to be up for the highest bidder. She's taken money from just about everyone who hates our guts. He's just too vain to not succeed, his ego won't allow it, hehe.


They will do anything to get that attention to promote their cause, collusion, cheating, espionage, even demonization of entire cultures, to get it. Two diametrically opposed world views, feeding off each other and sustaining each other. No wonder we are seeing this disaster unfold. And it begs the question: what will become of us in the next decade, when the newer generation is the protesters and the protesters of today are the policymakers? What does ATS think?


It's a good analysis. We can only hope they grow up like the hippies did, and realize that someone has to pay the bills. Hopefully, they'll also realize that while acceptance of weirdos is fine, catering laws to 1% of the population may not be the best course of action. Some degree of common sense is needed. I wonder more how they will get around. Seems like nobody in this new generation drives???

I'm not sure what the next generation will protest. As it seems this generation is prone to let just about anything happen.

Meanwhile, did you hear? Casey Anthony just opened up a daycare. That's it world, you got me...I get it, the Universe has officially just gone mad.


edit on 22-9-2016 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok
... catering laws to 1% of the population may not be the best course of action. Some degree of common sense is needed.


Yes. The next generation must make it known that oligarchy is not acceptable. They must overturn any law and idea that promotes it.

I think that they also need to deal with pollution. We need clean air and water. Pollution is not something like trash, that just remains where you dump it. Pollution can circle the globe. Here in the US, one state might deal with river pollution but live downstream from another state that caters to the oligarchy that doesn't want to deal with pollution.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Thread bump. I really admire you for these words.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
(...I can't believe I answered this twice; that it was an older thread resurrected and I'm pontificating again. I'll let it stand, though.)


originally posted by: TheRedneck
The big question in my mind has been why. We are all Americans. We share a commonality.


We do, but you haven't looked back at how divisive our history is. This is cultural. It doesn't start with the 1960's


It takes 20 years for ideas to come to the forefront, and 30 years for policies to develop from vague societal attitudes. A good example was the flower children movement of the 1960s. Go back 20 years and we have a society tired of but somewhat removed from war, and growing in prosperity.

Actually, you had a society entering war, a society fired up by its propaganda machines (other countries had their own propaganda machines) People penalized and brutalized for race (Jim Crow acts, lynchings, rounding up of Asian Americans and putting them in prison camps, etc, etc.)

Military service forced integration. On base, HIspanic, Black, Asian, White (and mixed race) kids ate together, rode buses together, played together in ways unlike the rest of America (I grew up on military bases.)

After the war, veterans got free college and many men and some women went to college.

It was the age of science fiction (and upbeat literature and movies) when we wrote ourselves as people conquering world problems with intellectual approaches. Where our movies and radios and television were full of people who interacted with their families and solved problems (usually non-violently.) The kids of this era were fascinated with science and wanted education (even we women did, though the barriers were there.)


That's what the 60s protests were about: peace, harmony, and love.

Those were the love-ins. The demonstrations were about equality for women, for minorities, and for ending the war.


1980s: It was the "me" decade, marked by a new prosperity and a penchant for technology and gadgets. The economy was recovering from the 1970s and science led the way.

I'm gonna dispute this. Engineering led the way but science was no longer glamorous. At the movies, blockbusters were back to showing wars (Full Metal Jacket) and crime/psychopaths (Scarface and The Shining) and White Guy Adventures emphasizing the lone wolf against society (even Indiana Jones does this, as does Breakfast Club, Star Wars, Ferris Bueller, Fast Times at Ridgemont High.)

In scifi and comics, dystopian elements were becoming popular.

Media influences how we see the world. This generation was growing up with "we need adventure, White guys do adventures and get girls as prizes, and science is about explosions.


With this wave of consumerism came a new interest in business, complete with new ideas on how it should work. Some succeeded, many failed.

Along with about a bazillion books like "Book of Five Rings for Managers" and everyone naming themselves a consultant and selling their own brand of Culture Change For Big Businesses. We got JIT (Just In Time) processing, Six Sigma and more.


So policy today reflects that philosophy: science has all the answers, is unlimited in its omnipotence, and business works with science to give everything to everybody. Today's policy rejects the policies of yesteryear: hard work, self-sufficiency, sacrifice for a greater good.

I'm going to disagree with this. As a scientist, I see LESS support for science than ever before (starting with Bush pulling funding for science and thus shutting down a lot of research. Obama tried, but I see us moving into an era where the administration will gut science in the name of business He's trying to put scientists on watch lists for doing climate research. When I start my bee monitoring, I expect I'll be put on a list somewhere.)

"Science" as shown on tv, is often about "how they did that stupid stunt" or "manipulated (bad) archaeology adventures" or "manipulated animal stuff." It's not science. It's entertainment.


1990s: people seemed to become bored with consumerism and turned their attention and wealth to causes. Environmentalism resurged, humanitarianism became popular, and science and technology were taken for granted.

Actually, we saw the re-rise of the hippie "technology is destroying the planet." Remember how everyone started getting freaky over Y2K?


Science does have limits,

I would dispute this

and we are pushing those every day, with precious little money left to support it.

...though I don't dispute this.


Business has become business-driven instead of customer-driven, existing for itself because that is assumed to be best for the customers.

Agreed

That has led to power abuses that would have shocked people a few decades ago.

Only if you didn't talk with grandparents about the robber barons and the oligarchs who led society through the end of the 1800's and the Gilded Age.


Enter the youth, caring not about money but assuming there will always be plenty for their particular cause. Since their cause is often assistance to one group of 'oppressed' people or another, people who are becoming desperate to maintain some semblance of a standard of living, their cries for assistance are amplified by their beneficiaries... and a government floundering in debt and questionable at best business involvements is quick to appease, lest their own dirty laundry be exposed.

Actually, thanks to business, their wages are far less than their parents'... even for the same type job. American CEOs take home 500 times what their workers get (In the UK, it's only 20 times a workers' salary.) The attitude of the youth is NOT to blame, here, when the company owner demands longer hours and harder work rather than decreasing his salary enough to pay for (say) an additional 50 workers AND give the whole company a salary raise.


No wonder we are seeing this disaster unfold. And it begs the question: what will become of us in the next decade, when the newer generation is the protesters and the protesters of today are the policymakers?


It depends on our policies of today as well as the stories we tell ourselves. Right now, it's a "don't trust government (don't trust government regulations), don't trust science, don't trust education, don't trust teachers, don't trust the news, don't trust each other, don't trust government handouts" and so forth.

It's generating a lot of different opinions in conflict with each other (from an information point, it's generating mathematical chaos into the information field.) From an Information perspective, this means that real information will be harder to find and information breakdown increases the noise (fake news, fake facts, opportunities to cheat and steal) and pushes people into little enclaves of "safe news" and other safe things.

Which implies greater divisiveness.

(and now I'm getting off into a track of seeing eddies (chaotic ripples) in information flow and my thoughts are turning mathematically abstract and scholarly so I'll shut up.)
edit on 20-12-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I think the core issue is whether we're better together or apart. Personally, I view the democrat republican divide as a parasitic relationship rather than a beneficial mutualistic one. That said i think the republicans would be better going our own way while democrats were left to their own accord. i realize not everything everyone fits into tidy boxes but in general the right are capable of thriving in dog eat dog type setting while the democrats are weak and flawed in some way preventing them from doing the same.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Wow. Thank you everyone for restarting an old thread that I had feared was long abandoned.

a reply to: Byrd


you haven't looked back at how divisive our history is. This is cultural.

In many ways you are right. Cultural conflicts have always been an issue since the birth of the second human, though. The culture in North Central Tennessee, for instance, is noticeably different from my culture here. Yet, we seem to be able to coexist separated by a pretty short distance.

Also, as you say, the United States has always been a country of many different cultures; the differences have actually minimized themselves over the last several decades. So why is the anger and animosity bubbling to the surface now? Some of that minimization could be attributed to modern communications (including the Internet), but the same thing is also, IMO, responsible for the dwindling cultural differences.


Actually, you had a society entering war

I was actually speaking of the society after the end of WWII. That was, what, around 1945 if memory serves.


Military service forced integration.

...

After the war, veterans got free college and many men and some women went to college.

...

It was the age of science fiction (and upbeat literature and movies) when we wrote ourselves as people conquering world problems with intellectual approaches. Where our movies and radios and television were full of people who interacted with their families and solved problems (usually non-violently.) The kids of this era were fascinated with science and wanted education

I was speaking of children. Veterans were given great praise (deserved) in those years, and yes, science fiction became a spokesperson for education. Many of the children of that era did become educated. However, that education was in science or the arts... not in attitude towards war. The anti-war sentiment was instilled in them from experiences from an even earlier age.


Those were the love-ins. The demonstrations were about equality for women, for minorities, and for ending the war.

Exactly. Peace from ending wars, harmony from equality and love for one's fellow man (or woman). I remember the love-ins as well, but that was more about sexual gratification IMO.


Engineering led the way but science was no longer glamorous.

Byrd, I know your impressive academic background, but to most people the two are seen as semantically identical. I as well recognize the difference, but to the average person, there is precious little difference between being a scientist and an engineer. Since we are discussing actions based on youthful impressions, I don't see how an academic difference would matter.

The primary difference between scientists and engineers is that scientists research while engineers create based on research. There is a lot of crossover actually between the two. So is it not logical that in a generation characterized by "me" and "more," those who built the gadgets would be seen in higher esteem than those who did the supporting research?


Along with about a bazillion books like "Book of Five Rings for Managers" and everyone naming themselves a consultant and selling their own brand of Culture Change For Big Businesses. We got JIT (Just In Time) processing, Six Sigma and more.

Exactly!


As a scientist, I see LESS support for science than ever before

Again, exactly my point. There is less and less funding available for science. Yet, at the same time, science is hailed as having all the answers. As a research engineer, I am regularly frustrated by attitudes that "oh, somebody will make one" when I try to explain why something isn't available using simple physics.


"Science" as shown on tv, is often about "how they did that stupid stunt" or "manipulated (bad) archaeology adventures" or "manipulated animal stuff." It's not science. It's entertainment.

You are describing the rise of the pop-sci culture, something which actually scares me more than a little. And not only do the shows water down the science to focus on the entertaining aspect, but we are getting more and more scientists who will spout gibberish on the television screen for right price. I refuse to name names on this point, but I am sure you have seen them as well.


Actually, we saw the re-rise of the hippie "technology is destroying the planet." Remember how everyone started getting freaky over Y2K?

Actually, I have seen that mantra in various forms as long as I have been alive. There are always, and will always be, those who fear technology. Myself, I fear our lack of wisdom in the face of technology much more than technology.


I would dispute this

Oh, but science does have limits. The speed of light is a Universal constant, no matter how we try to change it. The gravitational field of the earth is what it is, no matter how much technology we throw at it. Those are limits and while they may be allowed for, they cannot be changed.

Under present technological knowledge anyway.


Only if you didn't talk with grandparents about the robber barons and the oligarchs who led society through the end of the 1800's and the Gilded Age.

There will always be worse conditions if one moves far enough back through history. Do you think that invalidates the theory?


Actually, thanks to business, their wages are far less than their parents'... even for the same type job.

You are correct, especially when talking about real buying power. Of course, many youth are still in college, and many of those are living off their parents still.

But they still have not come to grips with the fact that money is limited. Most children today grow up with their own private silver spoon, surrounded by the latest fashions and the coolest toys and the hottest games. A child does not understand that these things cost money; all they know is that they have these things, they like these things, and they expect to keep these things. Reality tends to hit many of them hard when they enter the realm of harsh reality and get their first job, but old habits die hard... in my experience at least.


It depends on our policies of today as well as the stories we tell ourselves. Right now, it's a "don't trust government (don't trust government regulations), don't trust science, don't trust education, don't trust teachers, don't trust the news, don't trust each other, don't trust government handouts" and so forth.

You make a good point, and an apt observation of societal attitudes today. I know I have an extremely hard time trusting anyone fully... probably because I have had that trust used against me so much... but then again that is one man's opinion. Still, I see similar opinions all around me, where one group is considered a virtual savior and another is considered a demonic monster... yet both may work in very similar fashions.

You bring up some intriguing points, as always Byrd. Thank you for that.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thank you for bumping this thread, Buzzy! I look forward to reading more of Byrd's and The Redneck's thoughts.

Living history I tell ya! Very worthwhile for ATS members to view. What was then to what is now, and fountains of discussion to enjoy.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


But they still have not come to grips with the fact that money is limited. Most children today grow up with their own private silver spoon, surrounded by the latest fashions and the coolest toys and the hottest games. A child does not understand that these things cost money; all they know is that they have these things, they like these things, and they expect to keep these things.


I disagree with this.
I would go along with "most RICH children today", but certainly not the regular kids....there was no "unlimited money" to spend on my kids -- and they are in their late 20s now.....

children DO understand, when you teach them. I taught mine. Please do not generalize that "most" children are growing up with a silver spoon. The fact is that only about 1% of American families have kids that don't know how to budget, don't know that things cost money, and expect their parents "the rents" to pay for everything.

My daughter graduated with a masters from Northwestern (in Chicago), with a bachelor's in Materials Science, and a master's in Journalism. SHE GOT THERE ON A SCHOLARSHIP THAT SHE EARNED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. She is now gainfully employed with a major global firm that has been around for 400 years and is working on smart technologies. SHE WAS THE ONLY KID IN COLLEGE who knew how to budget, who knew how to shop for value instead of brand-name.

From the time my kids were toddlers they had savings accounts into which they would put the money-gifts they received. NEITHER OF THEM were raised with an 'entitlement' attitude. They learned how to scrimp and save, just like I did.....they know the value of things. Did we help them launch? Yes. To the best of our ability, which put us in debt. We cashed out our meager savings to make sure they had what they needed - but more importantly, we taught them that they needed to work for things they wanted, to be smart shoppers, to think ahead, and to know when a purchase was a waste or a good deal.

Your belief that "most children" now are brought up spoiled and with luxuries and unwarranted fancy stuff is simply untrue.
edit on 12/20/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

While I understand that my statement was a generalization, the "silver spoon syndrome" is something I have watched escalate all my life. Compared to me, my younger sister was treated like a queen materialistically. Compared to her, my nephew was materiallistically wealthy. Compared to him, his little sister is swimming in material goods. And this extends far beyond my family; I have seen similar situations in many many families from practically every social class.

At least part of this phenomenon is probably linked to the availability of material goods. In my day, there were no computers or video games. Today it is hard to find a home with children that does not have at least one video console, and any home period that does not have at least one computer. My favorite toy was a box of "building blocks," a cheap forerunner of Legos. Today, children have cell phones, personal computers, TVs in their room...

I do not disparage these things. I only offer this information as a matter of fact that bears significance on the psychological aspects of the various generations. And I fully recognize that, like any generalization, there will be exceptions. My kids were not so blessed, for instance. But specific instances do not disprove a generalization; grass is green, although there are a few varieties that are more blue than green. The sky is blue, although I have seen it be distinctively yellowish during hailstorms.


SHE WAS THE ONLY KID IN COLLEGE who knew how to budget, who knew how to shop for value instead of brand-name.

Exactly my point. Congratulations on your daughter's achievements.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thank you for bumping this thread, Buzzy! I look forward to reading more of Byrd's and The Redneck's thoughts.

Living history I tell ya! Very worthwhile for ATS members to view. What was then to what is now, and fountains of discussion to enjoy.

Thank you desert!

I have had many discussions with Byrd in the past, and I have come to respect and value her insights. I look forward to her next post.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Today, children have cell phones, personal computers, TVs in their room...

My kids did not have their own computers or TVs, let alone in their rooms!

You say "in my day" as though I didn't exist then also. I am 58 years old...and we didn't have computers or cell phones, either. Phone was attached to the wall. We played outside, or inside with board games or blocks or dolls or hotwheels...

And one other thing - I wanted to clarify that at Northwestern, it is 99% the RICH ELITE's kids. Many of them the offspring of the "bankers" and other elites, especially from the coasts/New England area and from Asia. My daughter was raised in a mixed neighborhood of modest homes....her grandparents are solidly middle-class, well-travelled, educated, and yet frugal.

Yes, many kids have TVs instead of parents, and I personally think it is negligent for a woman to have a baby and not raise it herself. A woman up to her bangs in a career has no business having a baby --- they are not "status symbols" or "pets" to be dropped off at some daycare center. In my opinion.

Parenthood is the most important job we have....it is not for the easily frustrated, flighty, selfish, or impulsive. Anyone who thinks it's easy (in fact, they need to realize it's the hardest thing they will ever do) is not really prepared for it. Seeking a coach or mentor, taking classes, reading books, etc. are critical for good parenting.

That's all I'll say about it. I am absolutely doggedly passionate about quality parenting....it was the focus of my professional education, and my career. I'll never stop advocating for the kids, or helping people with parenting. Ever.

It's because I care.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am glad to hear of your dogged passion, and of your results in parenting. I am equally passionate about my parental role, and proud of both of my children. But that is not the point of my hypotheses.

You, yourself, point out the superiority of your daughter compared with others of her generation. Such is evidence for the things I have been saying in this thread. Children's attitudes toward life are shaped in large part by their experiences when very young. Actions, not words, of those who play the part of role models (parents, close relatives, community leaders) shape their beliefs. Those beliefs become the basis for overall world views, and to a large extent will guide their attitudes and actions through life. My observations are based on those actions by the majority of parents, not the minority.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

okay. cool.

We totally agree on that, then.


I think maybe where I misread you was the "silver spoon" thing. Only the richest kids get that treatment....yes, the spoiled 1% brats who get a new porsche every time they total the last one. It is truth. For example, I doubt Donald Trump could function if he were to swap roles with a normal American family, in a modest home that they clean themselves, with lawns they mow themselves, eating food they shop for (or hunt or fish) and cook for themselves.

Doubt he's ever done a load of laundry or loaded a dishwasher or changed the oil on his own vehicle, let alone pump his own gas or air up his tires. Shovel the snow? Ha! No. He hasn't a clue what it's like to be a an executive HOMEOWNER and HOUSEKEEPER.

Then we have the other kids whose parents don't teach them because the parents don't know either.

Some years ago a woman who had grown up in the ozark mountains (similar to Ark, Ala, Miss, Tenn) to poor rural homesteaders gave her son a book called "rich dad, poor dad" - and it talked about how children are taught about money and finance. Poor people don't have bank acounts, they don't play the stock market. They don't deal in investments or savings or long-term real estate, etc. It is entirely out of their realm of reality.

Likewise the uber-rich generally hire people to do all of that stuff for them -- accountants, lawyers, brokers, managers, etc. My 24 year old nephew is working for some rich guy as his "investments manager." He was actually courted by the Koch brothers (flown to an interview in their private Cessna or Learjet or whatever).....and he had the integrity to TURN THEM DOWN. He didn't want to get mixed up with their agenda.

(His dad, my youngest brother, is an environmental engineer who monitors, checks on, and cleans up toxic messes).

Anyway - the trades people and middle classes generally to teach their kids about that stuff. Also, it might be a regional thing - I was born to a middle-class family in Chicagoland, and my dad was an engineer and entrepreneur who employed dozens of people in two paper plants. He certainly taught us the value of a dollar; he also taught us how to look things up, how to speak properly, how to present ourselves in polite company, and how to fish and fix plumbing....an all-round guy.

Skills are so very important. My Cuban friend and I were talking the other day about being glad we have a good group living on our block - we know each other, we have skills and tools that would enable us to survive. The super-rich don't. And the super-poor barely do.

I want to help the super-poor. I want them to get educations, and have decent housing. Job-readiness coaching, etc. Diversity training, tolerance for others who are different. Money, you see, can't buy class. Trump has none. Obama has lots. That's just my middle-aged opinion based on my own experience. I grew up around college professors, and business owners, and tradespeople, and merchants and lawyers, and heavy equpiment operators. Blacks, whites, browns, native americans.....we lived two blocks from Haskell University (native american college)....

we went to school with all manner of kids, from 'upper middle-class' down to the poorest. All of us went to the same high school.

anyway - I'm rambling.
Yes, there's a huge divide. But on a personal level, don't all people just want to live their lives and take care of their kids and do their best? I think so. Unless they are mentally ill.


edit on 12/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Actually, you had a society entering war

I was actually speaking of the society after the end of WWII. That was, what, around 1945 if memory serves.

Yeah, but evil me noted you said the 40's... and although the war officially ended in 45, the immediate impact lasted for quite awhile here in America and much longer in Europe.


I was speaking of children... Many of the children of that era did become educated. However, that education was in science or the arts... not in attitude towards war. The anti-war sentiment was instilled in them from experiences from an even earlier age.


I would disagree - I attended many public schools (the result of being an Army brat) and didn't see any anti-war sentiments. I did (now that I reflect on it) get schooled in a rather jingoistic patriotism and I do remember the Communist scare and the change to the Pledge of Allegiance because of that. This was the lead-in to the Cold War era.



Engineering led the way but science was no longer glamorous.

Byrd, I know your impressive academic background, but to most people the two are seen as semantically identical. I as well recognize the difference, but to the average person, there is precious little difference between being a scientist and an engineer. Since we are discussing actions based on youthful impressions, I don't see how an academic difference would matter.

The primary difference between scientists and engineers is that scientists research while engineers create based on research... So is it not logical that in a generation characterized by "me" and "more," those who built the gadgets would be seen in higher esteem than those who did the supporting research?

I agree to a point - most people don't know the difference (and even tv producers don't know the difference.) But I disagree in that with the rise of the Internet we see a lot of refrains of "they will have to rewrite science" and the corollary "stupid scientists".

We don't see that with engineering.



"Science" as shown on tv, is often about "how they did that stupid stunt" or "manipulated (bad) archaeology adventures" or "manipulated animal stuff." It's not science. It's entertainment.

You are describing the rise of the pop-sci culture, something which actually scares me more than a little. And not only do the shows water down the science to focus on the entertaining aspect, but we are getting more and more scientists who will spout gibberish on the television screen for right price. I refuse to name names on this point, but I am sure you have seen them as well.

In a number of cases, it's not that they're spouting gibberish... it's that the film editors have edited them into that mess. And in some cases their degrees aren't in science or aren't in the field that they're being interviewed about.

That said, there's a few of them who shouldn't be allowed to open their mouths without a teleprompter or something.

---
Re economics:

But they still have not come to grips with the fact that money is limited. Most children today grow up with their own private silver spoon, surrounded by the latest fashions and the coolest toys and the hottest games. A child does not understand that these things cost money; all they know is that they have these things, they like these things, and they expect to keep these things.

I think that it's more the consumer culture (the constant barrage of ads... I noticed in Europe there are far fewer ads everywhere.) Media trains us to think certain ways... and that media includes ads and movies and tv shows. This was also the era of the rise of the "stupid parents" movie and the "bratty entitled kids" movie.



It depends on our policies of today as well as the stories we tell ourselves. Right now, it's a "don't trust government (don't trust government regulations), don't trust science, don't trust education, don't trust teachers, don't trust the news, don't trust each other, don't trust government handouts" and so forth.

You make a good point, and an apt observation of societal attitudes today. I know I have an extremely hard time trusting anyone fully... probably because I have had that trust used against me so much...


In thinking about our discussion, it also occurred to me that this coincides with films like "The Matrix." Movies had been getting more and more dystopian (think of the differences between the first "Superman" movie and the latest offerings. Or the Batman tv show (which was silly fun) and the most recent... morass. Media shapes us in many ways - these movies weren't the hit in other countries (take Canada, or England, or Australia - to limit it to English speaking countries with a generally similar culture.) Even our non-American members here tend to have a less fearful or wary view of the world. Part of this comes with a decline in writing scripts - American tv shows have to be "bigger and badder" with more noise (compare Downton Abbey (a mega-hit) with Game of Thrones (read the books, have not and do NOT intend to watch the series.) And then there's the rise (since "Animal House") of the Stupid Jerk meme... the Stupid and Unattractive Jerk who ends up with the most gorgeous woman in the film.

We learn from stories.

I don't think the ones we've been given are terribly healthy.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
A woman up to her bangs in a career has no business having a baby --- they are not "status symbols" or "pets" to be dropped off at some daycare center. In my opinion.


Just fyi... that would be me. Woman with careers, and kids.

Mine turned out well... My daughter and I go do fun and silly things on her days off and tonight my son and daughter and granddaughter and I are all going to see "Rogue One" together.

I will add that just because someone is capable of having a baby does not automatically make them a wonderful parent... my poor dear daughter-in-law was the victim of not one but TWO such women (on their behalf, I will say that both were bipolar and improved after medical diagnosis and drugs.)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Women need to be aware that kids are a huge responsibility. I am not at all saying women should not pursue their own educations and accomplishments. Just that babies are every bit -- in fact, MORE - important.

I'm talking about the ones who work 80 hour-weeks, travel all the time, take work home with them, etc. I was determined to stay home with mine until they got into school -- then I resumed my own career, went to grad school, and all that good stuff. My kids are Millennials, doing pretty well.
They ALWAYS came first. Always. Family came before work. And that's all there is to it. I waited until after college and a few years of child-free post-college working full time....then got married and decided to start a family. Planned parenthood is very important.

Hope I didn't offend.
edit on 12/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join