Add new comment

"If we get only the middling model of that new car"

Powerful application, that paragraph, and that's exactly where my wife and I are. (SSI helps with the restaurants part of that scenario!) But my mom was the one who bought the potted liver three times a week; now that I'm in one world I realize that I could NEVER have understood my mom's world, if hadn't been there.

Strange hybrid... just last week I finally looked up this "alt-right" label that refers to your hybrid Daddy-O. It *is* strange. Bizarro world. I don't understand a thing about this election except James' comment below about the math of the split. This comment also from June ($3 per month to gain access to these archives!):

..................

HeyBill: I like the filtered, reasoned discussion of Brexit/politics/etc. Thank you for filtering and by all means, filter me if I get irrational. You are a little older than me and remember the Viet Nam era better ( I graduated HS in '74). In your opinion is the country more divided and people more angry now than in the '60s? We don't have huge riots nor National Guard shooting students nor campus radicals bombing stuff. But I have never heard so many people I know that are so angry/frustrated as now ....... I don't want to start a thread about the '60s ...... just a thoughtful comparison. Note the Europe was way wilder in the '60s than now, look at France and the riots, etc. Another question: is the prevalence of media everywhere: instant news, everybody can communicate with everybody; a cause of our current edginess????

Asked by: FrankD

Answered: 6/30/2016

The disaffected people of the 1960s--the Kids and black people, basically--were clearly a minority of the population, a fairly small slice. We were no more than 20% of the population, since we did not have unanimous support even among young people or even among black people. The violence (rioting and extreme protests) were a reaction to the fact that we were, in the end, powerless to effect real change.

What we have now is a much deeper and more significant split in the population, in which it is unclear WHERE the majority stands.

Well. . .back to the sixties. In the sixties we had a cleavage of values and life style. One side felt you would go to hell for wearing your hair long, using drugs and having sex outside of marriage; the other was doing a lot of that stuff. I don't believe that the separation in values now is as wide as the separation of values that we had then; rather, we have very profound differences in political philosophy, often among people who base their life decisions on values that seem almost indistinguishable.

...........

It's not clear to me (Jeff) what he means by his Postscript paragraph, though? Maybe one of you guys could rephrase it for me.

I thought the cleavage in values was wider now. James must be thinking something, though I don't know what it is. Maybe he's talking about the fact that Christians have mostly surrendered like Gen. Lee on long hair, drugs and premarital sex, but what is it now? Whether the earth is doomed by climate ... or, on whether partial birth abortion is okay ... on socialism ... censorship of speech in college ... Islamic terrorism ... whether corruption in government is tolerable, if your candidate is doing it ... these issues and values are less oppositional?

Enlighten me :- )

Seattle Sports Insider

"If we get only the middling model of that new car"

Filtered HTML

Plain text

shout_filter