Take Me Back To The Sixties

[kg4kww]

This is the best presentation of the sixties that I have ever seen online. It is very well done. Just click on the link and sit back and enjoy the memories.


Take Me Back To The Sixties (http://moreoldfortyfives.com:80/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm)

[kg4kww]

Is this a cool web site?

[n7zsd]

Very cool. Although I was born in 1961, I am a big fan of the '60's music. I still have an 8-track player that works good, and I owned a car with a push-button shifter. All this makes me feel old. I guess I will hobble my old, decrepped butt upstairs and go to bed.

[al2i]

I am largely a product of the sixties, and thought that was cool, but the most momentous thing about the sixties was our manned space flight program.

[n2ize]

Amusing. However, a few of the claims made during that presentation are a bit of a stretch and a few bogus and at least a couple of the TV shows mentioned are more 1970's than 60's. #Nonetheless an amusing retrospect. Would I want to "bring back the 1960's" ? No, it would probably not be the best of ideas. For me the 1960's was mostly childhood, attending Catholic school, performing duties as altar boy on Sundays and thurifer on special occaisions, watching the rocket launches and splashdowns on TV (was considered mandatory to watch back then), tv shows like Batman, Superman, Get Smart, etc. and all those Westerns made in the 50's and earlier #that were constantly shown on TV in the 60's that I hated then but love today.

Of course my real heyday was the 1970's when I roamed the streets with a gang of crazed maniacal demons till the wee hours.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 07 2007,20:03)]Is this a cool web site?
no

[KL7FZ]

Oh yeah man, the sixties. Cool. Yeah. I remember them. I think. Yeah. Dig it. No wait, yeah...yeah....wasn't that just before the 70's and disco, man? Yeah that was cool. They had some good stuff back then man....came out of Mexico..get you real messed up man. Or was that the Thai sticks? Far out. Yeah. I think I remember then. I remember a party...


KL7FZ

[W3MIV]

1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.

[W4HAY]

The 50s (http://oldfortyfives.com/TakeMeBackToTheFifties.htm) was our decade. Our group had lots of parties at our house, because we had a big back porch with a smooth floor for dancing, a home-made Karlsen enclosure and a Heathkit Hi-Fi amp. It's rompin' stompin' 7 Watts of audio really brought those 45s to life. Almost as good as having your own Rock-Ola jukebox!

It helped that my parents and some of their friends were still teenagers at heart! They bought some retro LPs from the thirties and had their friends over!

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
That half baked science has killed millions of people in the past 40 years.

[AE6IP]

Any depiction of the American '60s that leaves out the civil rights movement misses the point of the period.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KL7FZ @ Sep. 08 2007,04:10)]Oh yeah man, the sixties. Cool. Yeah. I remember them. I think. Yeah. Dig it. No wait, yeah...yeah....wasn't that just before the 70's and disco, man? Yeah that was cool. They had some good stuff back then man....came out of Mexico..get you real messed up man. Or was that the Thai sticks? Far out. Yeah. I think I remember then. I remember a party...


KL7FZ
Ever smoke a mezzrole ?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 08 2007,09:24)]Any depiction of the American '60s that leaves out the civil rights movement misses the point of the period.
Which that depiction did leave out entirely.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 07 2007,19:16)]This is the best presentation of the sixties that I have ever seen online. It is very well done. Just click on the link and sit back and enjoy the memories.


Take Me Back To The Sixties # (http://moreoldfortyfives.com:80/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm)
Believe me , if there was something I could do to help send you back to the 60's..........

[N2RJ]

I'm sure Greg would love the 60's, where everyone had to learn code to get a ham radio license... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 08 2007,14:35)]I'm sure Greg would love the 60's, where everyone had to learn code to get a ham radio license... #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ay, an' do so in front of stern-faced FCC men with no inclination to molly-coddle or wipe one's nose.

You also had to sit through all of the three code exams before, if you passed the Morse test, you could take the written test. If you failed, you had to wait a minimum of thirty days (IIRC) before you could take a test again.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,12:16)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
That half baked science has killed millions of people in the past 40 years.
Which "half-baked science" would that be?

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,11:43)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,12:16)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
That half baked science has killed millions of people in the past 40 years.
Which "half-baked science" would that be?
This should be good.

[kb2vxa]

"Is this a cool web site?"

No, it's a Powerpoint presentation someone sent me months ago.

"Any depiction of the American '60s that leaves out the civil rights movement misses the point of the period."

The "summer of love" 1967 was fine for the hippies but I was one who saw it as the summer of hate and violence. Perhaps Frank Zappa said it better.

Well I'm about to get up sick
From watchin my t.v.
Been checkin' out the news
Until my eyeballs fail to see
I mean to say that every day
Is just another rotten mess
And when it's gonna change, my friend
Is anybody's guess
So I'm watching and I'm waiting
Hopin' for the best
Even think I go to praying
Every time I hear them sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' everyday
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Wednesday I watched the riot
I've seen the cops out on the street
Watch them throwing rocks and stuff and choking in the heat
Listen to reports
About the whiskey passin' round
Seen the smoke and fire
And the market burnin' down
Watched while everybody on his street would take a turn
They stomp and smash and bash and crash and slash and bust 'n burn
And I'm watching and I'm waitin hopin' for the best
Even think I go to prayin'
Every time I hear em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' everyday

You can cool it
You can heat it
Cause baby I don't need it
Take your t.v. tube and eat it
And all that phony stuff on sports
And all those unconfirmed reports
You know I watch that rotten box
Until my head begin to hurt
From checkin' out the way
The newsmen say they get the dirt
Before the guys on channel so and so
And further they assert
That any show they litter up
They bring you news if it comes up
They say that if the place blows up
They will be the first to tell
Cause the boys they got downtown
Working hard and doin swell
And if anybody gets the news
Before it hits the streets
They say that no one blams it faster
Their coverage can't be beat
And if another woman driver
Gets machine gunned from her seat
They'll send some joker with a brownie
And youll see it all complete

So I'm watching and I'm waiting
Hopin for the best
Even think I go to praying
Every time I hear them saying
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' everyday
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Well I've seen the fires burnin'
And the local people turnin'
All the merchants and the shops
Who use to sell their brooms and mops
And every other household item
Watch the mob just turn and bite em
And they say it serve them right
Because a few of them are white
And it's the same across the nation
Black and White discrimination
Yell and you can understand me
And all that other crap they hand me
In the papers and t.v.
And all that mass stupidity
That seems to grow more everyday
These time of year some a**hole say
He wants to go and do you in
Cause the color of your skin
Just don't appeal to him
No matter if it's black or white
Because he's out for blood tonight

[W7WV]

Grew up late 40s to the 60s until the Army decided it was my time to go.
Then we really had to grow up fast.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W7WV @ Sep. 08 2007,16:30)]Grew up late 40s to the 60s until the Army decided it was my time to go.
Then we really had to grow up fast.
Wasn't that the truth. It was an experience that would have value today.

[w8znx]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Sep. 08 2007,03:44)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 07 2007,20:03)]Is this a cool web site?
no
not cool
its just more
lame ass good old day bs

the 60's were a huge bummer

I was born in 1848
when to high school
and went to war in the 60s

it was not a simpler time

if you read about Woodstock
in the " Pacific Stars and Stripes "
sitting on a sand bag in Viet Nam

it was not a simpler time

when over 50,000 American Troops
died in that foolish war
in South East Asia

it was not a simpler time

if you were named
Goodwin, Schwerner or Chaney

it was not a simpler time

when Kennedy, King and Kennedy
were assassinated

grew up and lived the 60s
it was anything but great

mac

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Sep. 08 2007,12:28)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,11:43)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,12:16)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
That half baked science has killed millions of people in the past 40 years.
Which "half-baked science" would that be?
This should be good.
Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring', published in 1962, led to the banning of DDT in 1972. One of the important waystops in this saga was Ratcliffe's publication of the "Decrease in Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey" in Nature magazine 1967.

The angst occasioned by the above publications spurred the establishment of the Environmental Defense Fund in 1967 and the subsequent politicalization of science.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,17:36)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Sep. 08 2007,12:28)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,11:43)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,12:16)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
That half baked science has killed millions of people in the past 40 years.
Which "half-baked science" would that be?
This should be good.
Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring', published in 1962, led to the banning of DDT in 1972. #One of the important waystops in this saga was Ratcliffe's publication of the "Decrease in Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey" in Nature magazine 1967.

The angst occasioned by the above publications spurred the establishment of the Environmental Defense Fund in 1967 and the subsequent politicalization of science.
Thank you for the clarification. I understand your point, and agree with it to a certain extent. DDT was being overused, and it did contribute to increasingly fragile shells and a consequent reduction of several species of birds. Where you are on solid ground is that banning DDT was an act of lunacy, and the Third World has paid a heavy price for "popular science" dictating policy.

As for the politicization of science, I would date that from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the socalled "enlightenment," which has shown itself to be anything but.

Lastly, I wish I knew the location of Rachel Carson's final resting place. I would send a few barrels of robin droppings to her grave as a bit of gratitude for now being over-run by the damned birds here in Ellicott City.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w8znx @ Sep. 08 2007,16:39)]I was born in 1848
when to high school
and went to war in the 60s
Stop complaining, Mac. You are holding up quite well for your age. Was that the Civil War?

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,05:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
Yep, soon's things superficially seemed to take a direction that was different and hadn't been seen before, you withdrew into your own "I'm RIGHT, darnit!" shell and stopped learning, growing, and progressing.

But you're not alone.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,14:36)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Sep. 08 2007,12:28)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,11:43)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,12:16)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
That half baked science has killed millions of people in the past 40 years.
Which "half-baked science" would that be?
This should be good.
Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring', published in 1962, led to the banning of DDT in 1972. #One of the important waystops in this saga was Ratcliffe's publication of the "Decrease in Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey" in Nature magazine 1967.

The angst occasioned by the above publications spurred the establishment of the Environmental Defense Fund in 1967 and the subsequent politicalization of science.
Actually this was discussed at length on this very forums several months ago. Rachael Carson was actually quite an impressive scientist with excellent qualifications. Indeed Carson herself DID NOT call for the banning of DDT. She equated DDT as being a likely cause of problems related to birds and egg shell thickness. #As far as what to do she called for sensible measures and not an outright ban. For example during that time it was not uncommon for DDT to be used in excess as per a "better safe than sorry" mindset. Carson called for a conservative approach to DDT application in which the minimal amount needed to be effective is applied while suitable precautions be taken to reduce the quantities of DDT to leach into ground water, wells, and ultimately rivers, ponds and nesting grounds. She never demanded an outright ban on the substance.

Quote[/b] ]
The angst occasioned by the above publications spurred the establishment of the Environmental Defense Fund in 1967 and the subsequent politicization of science.


Bull Dinky's. Science, technology and politics have always been joined at the hip and "politicized" #from the earliest times. Go back to ancient times and we find kings, emperors, tribal elders, merchants, etc. recruiting the scientists and mathematicians of the times to research and devise new and improved methodologies that would in some way, shape, or form benefit the kingdom and it's wealth. This was true then and it is true today. Consider the motivational forces behind the growth of the space program of the 1960's, the "space race" and the new technologies that arose. It was largely mandated by the cold war politics of the day. #Public health departments, research into the causes, effects, cures and control of diseases grew out of politics generated by large immigrant populations living in crowded urban conditions which necessitated a need for such research and development and subsequently that research and development led to new policy concerning such matters.

One of the reasons you have clean air and clean water today is due to the work that was done during the 1960's and 70's , science and public environmental policy, such as the Environmental Defense Fund.

Even today we see the inseparable bond between much of today's science and technology. From such topics as genetic engineering, to stem cell research, to cloning, to information technology and the myriad of laws, regulations, restrictions, surveillance and numerous political ramifications related to electronic information and telecommunications.

Science, technology has ALWAYS been politicized. The 2 are almost inseperable in the real world.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:26)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,05:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
Yep, soon's things superficially seemed to take a direction that was different and hadn't been seen before, you withdrew into your own "I'm RIGHT, darnit!" shell and stopped learning, growing, and progressing.

But you're not alone.
Not surprisingly, you are giving a more accurate view of yourself than you are of me. And there was nothing at all superficial about any of it. It was a serious time fraught with serious issues, and the Children's Crusade that has become the romantic hallmark for the prepubescent dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" merely deferred seriously addressing any of the problems attendant to those times. We pay for them now.

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,17:01)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:26)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,05:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
Yep, soon's things superficially seemed to take a direction that was different and hadn't been seen before, you withdrew into your own "I'm RIGHT, darnit!" shell and stopped learning, growing, and progressing.

But you're not alone.
Not surprisingly, you are giving a more accurate view of yourself than you are of me. And there was nothing at all superficial about any of it. It was a serious time fraught with serious issues, and the Children's Crusade that has become the romantic hallmark for the prepubescent dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" merely deferred seriously addressing any of the problems attendant to those times. We pay for them now.

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.
That's funny, what you post is exactly what I think of you.

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.

Suits what you present yourself as here with your words to a tee, Albert.

[KB9YCO]

A well made video but it seemed a little bitter. I understand that most people look back to the summer of their lives through rose colored glasses, but this notion that everything was better back then (pick an era) and that everything is terrible and screwed up now has been bandied about by every generation since the beginning of written history.
Also, I have to say that I think the 50's were probably much more revolutionary since the youths of that era had much more restriction and prudish attitudes to fight against in terms of music, racial relations, free expression, etc., etc. Really the 50's were the beginning of the 60's rebellion. Alan Freed, Buddy Holly, Lenny Bruce, beatniks, McCarthyism, on and on and on. This division in simple terms of decade alone ignores the fact that the 50's are really where the cultural revolution started. Interesting video either way, and that from a young punk like me that wasn't even born until 1971.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,16:01)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:26)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,05:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
Yep, soon's things superficially seemed to take a direction that was different and hadn't been seen before, you withdrew into your own "I'm RIGHT, darnit!" shell and stopped learning, growing, and progressing.

But you're not alone.
Not surprisingly, you are giving a more accurate view of yourself than you are of me. And there was nothing at all superficial about any of it. It was a serious time fraught with serious issues, and the Children's Crusade that has become the romantic hallmark for the prepubescent dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" merely deferred seriously addressing any of the problems attendant to those times. We pay for them now.

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.
Quote[/b] ]
Not surprisingly, you are giving a more accurate view of yourself than you are of me. And there was nothing at all superficial about any of it. It was a serious time fraught with serious issues, and the Children's Crusade that has become the romantic hallmark for the prepubescent dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" merely deferred seriously addressing any of the problems attendant to those times. We pay for them now.


Time is continuous, the "Age of Aquarius" was always here and will always be. So will be the "Roaring 20's", the "Dark Ages", the "Renaissance", etc. All time had issues of importance and their ways of dealing with those issues. All those times affect the future in one way or another. it's easy to sit today with a curmudgeonly attitude and think to oneself, "if only those darned kids behaved themselves back then things would be so much the better now" when in reality that is a subjective viewpoint. Perhaps if they had not been as they were and things had not been as they were perhaps we would be far worst off.

Quote[/b] ]
Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.


What you view as a jejune idealism was perhaps a opulent and robust idealism for others. Perhaps the growth of the 60's idealism was a direct riposte to the vapid idealism that rests glaciated within the constringed mindset that many, and perhaps yourself (maybe) have become wedded.

In retrospect the 1960's was not particularly unusual or deviant. It was for the most part a conservative decade not that much different than past or present. #The so called youthful subversiveness was in reality the expectatious eye of the storm destined for land. Ah Hah.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,19:52)]That's funny, what you post is exactly what I think of you. #

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.

Suits what you present yourself as here with your words to a tee, Albert.
If that is what you need to think, I wouldn't try to break you out of your delusion. I have no chip on my shoulder, and I cannot imagine how anyone would assume that I have.

Only a fool would argue that today's society is a better or more wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child than were those now distant times. Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined. I do not need to argue those facts; they are obvious to any with eyes to see and a brain that works.

I don't seek to return to those years. That is not possible. I rue the changes that have been wrought, but that sadness is purely intellectual: I am well past any possibility of any of the fallen standards having much of an effect on me personally.

You are the one who is obsessed by a need to justify what you would like to believe were worthwhile "advances," but it is very clear from the very manner in which you inevitably broach the topics that you are driven to repeat them again and again as though by such repetition you might make yourself believe them.

When I characterized that time as the beginning of a retreat to an age marked by chaos, turpitude and anarchy, I was merely making an honest appraisal. You are the one who, wholly unbidden, felt the need to make a bitter post challenging the assertion. What sting of truth incited that need to cry out against what I posted if it were not a tincture of rising uncertainty that corrodes the dregs of a callow ideology that looks less and less respectable?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,18:25)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,19:52)]That's funny, what you post is exactly what I think of you.

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.

Suits what you present yourself as here with your words to a tee, Albert.
If that is what you need to think, I wouldn't try to break you out of your delusion. I have no chip on my shoulder, and I cannot imagine how anyone would assume that I have.

Only a fool would argue that today's society is a better or more wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child than were those now distant times. Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined. I do not need to argue those facts; they are obvious to any with eyes to see and a brain that works.

I don't seek to return to those years. That is not possible. I rue the changes that have been wrought, but that sadness is purely intellectual: I am well past any possibility of any of the fallen standards having much of an effect on me personally.

You are the one who is obsessed by a need to justify what you would like to believe were worthwhile "advances," but it is very clear from the very manner in which you inevitably broach the topics that you are driven to repeat them again and again as though by such repetition you might make yourself believe them.

When I characterized that time as the beginning of a retreat to an age marked by chaos, turpitude and anarchy, I was merely making an honest appraisal. You are the one who, wholly unbidden, felt the need to make a bitter post challenging the assertion. What sting of truth incited that need to cry out against what I posted if it were not a tincture of rising uncertainty that corrodes the dregs of a callow ideology that looks less and less respectable?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Sometimes we obfuscate us from ourselves with our internal verbiage.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,20:31)]Sometimes we obfuscate us from ourselves with our internal verbiage.
Really? I thought it was just Albert sublimating his Id, by his Ego. No Super-ego to speak of though.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,17:25)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,19:52)]That's funny, what you post is exactly what I think of you. #

Instead of understanding the genesis of the societal fault lines that resulted in the fracture and misdirection of a jejune idealism, you obviously formed "frozen" patterns out of which you have never permitted yourself to grow. Rather than attain balance and understanding, it has left a chip on your shoulder that leads you to re-argue the same points time and again. That very need is a display of the uncertainty with which you hold those views, and you seek again and again the reinforcement and validation that you failed to achieve in those immature years.

Suits what you present yourself as here with your words to a tee, Albert.
If that is what you need to think, I wouldn't try to break you out of your delusion. I have no chip on my shoulder, and I cannot imagine how anyone would assume that I have.

Only a fool would argue that today's society is a better or more wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child than were those now distant times. Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined. I do not need to argue those facts; they are obvious to any with eyes to see and a brain that works.

I don't seek to return to those years. That is not possible. I rue the changes that have been wrought, but that sadness is purely intellectual: I am well past any possibility of any of the fallen standards having much of an effect on me personally.

You are the one who is obsessed by a need to justify what you would like to believe were worthwhile "advances," but it is very clear from the very manner in which you inevitably broach the topics that you are driven to repeat them again and again as though by such repetition you might make yourself believe them.

When I characterized that time as the beginning of a retreat to an age marked by chaos, turpitude and anarchy, I was merely making an honest appraisal. You are the one who, wholly unbidden, felt the need to make a bitter post challenging the assertion. What sting of truth incited that need to cry out against what I posted if it were not a tincture of rising uncertainty that corrodes the dregs of a callow ideology that looks less and less respectable?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Boy, no wonder it's hot today. Lot of pseudo intellectual hot air blowing around today. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,15:26)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,05:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.
Yep, soon's things superficially seemed to take a direction that was different and hadn't been seen before, you withdrew into your own "I'm RIGHT, darnit!" shell and stopped learning, growing, and progressing.

But you're not alone.
It's easier for some to assume the role of curmudgeon and condemn.

[w6ez]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,04:41)]1967 was Year Zero, and from that point we began to count backwards in a quest to reach a new Dark Ages.


You may have something there.

[WA3WDR]

Born in mid 1950, I turned ten in 1960. #The sixties. #It was a good time, I was young, things were going OK for me. # But the Vietnam war, the pictures, the little girl running after napalm burned her, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, John F. Kennedy's assassination, Civil Rights, Welfare, Malcolm X, his assassination, Martin Luther King, his assassination, the riots, Robert Kennedy's assassination, Nixon... #No wonder many chose psychedelics. #You may not agree with them, but that wasn't the way they wanted to go. #Woodstock... but then Altamont. #Love and Peace, but then Charles Manson. #Things were not right.

And other decades were not so good.

It settled down a bit in the USA in the 70s, but Cinque and the Symbianese Liberation Front kidnapping Patty Hurst, MOVE in Phialdelphia, the Arab-Israeli wars, the oil embargo and shortages in the USA, the terrorist hijackings, the murders of Olympic athletes, the wars, the pullout from Vietnam, Castro in Zaire, and finally Three Mile Island and the Iran hostages.

The eighties... Reagan, Iraq using WMD on Iran with our support, and on their own people as we looked the other way, the beginning of the big deficit game in the USA, truck bombs in Lebanon, Iran-Contra, the desaparcedos in the El Salvador area, and our involvement there, crack cocaine begins to appear, kids can't find the USA on a map, illegal immigration a problem, amnestey supposed to fix it, the stock market crash of 1987, it's getting worse and worse, as gleaming buildings reach for the sky.

The 90s... The Berlin Wall down, Germany reunified, The Soviet Union collapses, Iraq led to believe we didn't care about Kuwait then the rug pulled out... the burning oil wells, the oil slick in the Persian Giulf, the Scuds, then Somalia, Black Hawk Down, the quick retreat out of there, Clinton and Gennifer Flowers, nobody cared, then the World Trade Center bombing, then Saddam and his stupid games, the US deficit continues to rise, then slows a bit because of the internet bubble, and Osama bin Laden declares war on the USA, Clinton and Whitewater, Clinton and Paula Jones, and the African embassies are bombed, #Clinton and Monica, impeachment, the Ozone Hole, Newt Gingrich's cellphone conversation, and his affair, and he's out, and we worry about a terror attack on Y2K and we worry about Y2K itself, nobody notices illegal immigration out of control.

This decade... the bombing of the USS Cole, Bush, the internet bubble burst, 9/11/01, losing bin Laden, going after Saddam instead, the Iraq War, no WMD, etc, Plame leaked, Katrina, 7/7/05, civil war in Iraq, not what we were told, the deficit continues to rise out of control, a Social Security train wreck coming around the bend, nothing saved, no way to control spending, Global Warming, big inflation not called inflation, illegal immigeration so bad that it can no longer be ignored, critical mass, what to do, oil price spikes, riots in France, suburbs of Paris burn, the world is very jittery, the dollar falls, and we worry, the president can't talk, Miss Teenage America can't talk either, the government watches us, strange leaks happen, bad mortgage loans begin to crash the economy, we try not to worry, meanwhile we figure a terror attack will happen at any moment.

This from around 1969:

Black Day In July
by Gordon Lightfoot
Black day in July
Motor city madness has touched the countryside
And through the smoke and cinders
You can hear it far and wide
The doors are quickly bolted
And the children locked inside

Black day in July
Black day in July
And the soul of Motor City is bared across the land
As the book of law and order is taken in the hands
Of the sons of the fathers who were carried to this land

Black day in July
Black day in July
In the streets of Motor City is a deadly silent sound
And the body of a dead youth lies stretched upon the ground
Upon the filthy pavement
No reason can be found

Black day in July
Black day in July
Motor City madness has touched the countryside
And the people rise in anger
And the streets begin to fill
And there's gunfire from the rooftops
And the blood begins to spill

Black day in July

In the mansion of the governor
There's nothing that is known for sure
The telephone is ringing
And the pendulum is swinging
And they wonder how it happened
And they really know the reason
And it wasn't just the temperature
And it wasn't just the season

Black day in July
Black day in July
Motor City's burning and the flames are running wild
They reflect upon the waters of the river and the lake
And everyone is listening
And everyone's awake

Black day in July
Black day in July
The printing press is turning
And the news is quickly flashed
And you read your morning paper
And you sip your cup of tea
And you wonder just in passing
Is it him or is it me

Black day in July

In the office of the President
The deed is done the troops are sent
There's really not much choice you see
It looks to us like anarchy
And then the tanks go rolling in
To patch things up as best they can
There is no time to hesitate
The speech is made the dues can wait

Black day in July
Black day in July
The streets of Motor City now are quiet and serene
But the shapes of gutted buildings
Strike terror to the heart
And you say how did it happen
And you say how did it start
Why can't we all be brothers
Why can't we live in peace
But the hands of the have-nots
Keep falling out of reach

Black day in July
Black day in July
Motor city madness has touched the countryside
And through the smoke and cinders
You can hear it far and wide
The doors are quickly bolted
And the children locked inside

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Sep. 08 2007,22:06)]Boy, no wonder it's hot today. Lot of pseudo intellectual hot air blowing around today. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Isn't flatulence hot?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,16:25)]Only a fool would argue that today's society is a better or more wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child than were those now distant times. Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined. I do not need to argue those facts; they are obvious to any with eyes to see and a brain that works.
I was hoping to see your assertion challenged, but it was not.

I disagree with your assessment that "Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined." That seems to be an overstatement, so I guess I'm the fool. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

However I concur with your idea that we lack a "...wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child..." I have not been able in good conscience to have my kids attend public school, but if the public school environment was like it was in the pre-1967 world, I probably would have no concerns.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Sep. 08 2007,21:43)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,16:25)]Only a fool would argue that today's society is a better or more wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child than were those now distant times. Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined. I do not need to argue those facts; they are obvious to any with eyes to see and a brain that works.
I was hoping to see your assertion challenged, but it was not.

I disagree with your assessment that "Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined." #That seems to be an overstatement, so I guess I'm the fool. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

However I concur with your idea that we lack a "...wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child..." #I have not been able in good conscience to have my kids attend public school, but if the public school environment was like it was in the pre-1967 world, I probably would have no concerns.
Depends also on what one considers a "wholesome environment". #I don't know if there ever was such thing as a wholesome environment. More often than not the "wholesomness" of ones environment depends on how much money the person or family had. Prior to public schooling the amount of education a child received revolved around how much money one had for books, resources, schooling, etc. #The rich being able to afford books, governesses, private tutors, private schools and colleges fared better than the poor for whom these things were our of reach and for whom little time was available for education. Public school leveled the playing field and played a role in the evolution of the now waning middle class. Public schools were not perfect for or aft 1967, noeither are parochial or private schools.

Scientific advancements since 1967 ? Were many and not limited to the medical sciences. #Lots of post 67 advancements in Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, etc. right up to the present growth and advancements in information technology, computer science, etc. To argue that science conked out in 67 is ludicrous.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Sep. 09 2007,00:43)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,16:25)]Only a fool would argue that today's society is a better or more wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child than were those now distant times. Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined. I do not need to argue those facts; they are obvious to any with eyes to see and a brain that works.
I was hoping to see your assertion challenged, but it was not.

I disagree with your assessment that "Every objective standard of life and living, with the solitary exception of some advances in medical and chirurgical sciences, has declined." #That seems to be an overstatement, so I guess I'm the fool. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

However I concur with your idea that we lack a "...wholesome environment in which to raise a family or try to educate a child..." #I have not been able in good conscience to have my kids attend public school, but if the public school environment was like it was in the pre-1967 world, I probably would have no concerns.
One could make a case for "progress," I suppose, but I had consequences in mind that reach more deeply than teflon skillets or plasma TVs. How does one assess the value of the teflon skillet, if its predominate use will be to prepare Hamburger Helper? How has the plasma TV abetted the advance of culture if all it displays is a steady drumbeat of propagandist drivel and sex shorn of love?

When I was a child, the printed page was the norm. One sought excitement in a book, and the mental excitement of translating text into mental imagery inspired and exercised the imagination in ways television cannot. Pornography existed then, but it was not an "accepted" part of the living room culture. "Drugs" existed, too, but nobody I knew considered them a form of "recreation." We had a clear and compelling visualization of what we considered a "track" to addiction, and we avoided any association with what we perceived attendant to that path. Sure, it was probably an exaggerated depiction; but, in light of today's reality, could you honestly condemn the exaggeration on any basis that is not a blatant hypocrisy?

Our youth was seared by tobacco, but even the societal price of that drug will not approach the final tally of the cost of rampant, "recreational" use of cocaine, the boutique chemicals and purloined pharmaceuticals, malprescribed sedatives and even "harmless" cannabis sativa. Tobacco yielded health problems that robbed families of a loved one, usually at a mature stage of life. "Drugs" rob families of entire lives, with users often starting at the greenest of years and pursuing vacuous and dependent existences until reaching a hopeless end. And, more often than not, a very premature end.

Drugs, even more so than alcohol, are the choice of the bored. It is an interesting and informative exercise to reason the nature and causes of the boredom that leads one to seek so dangerous an escape from the ennui that grips their lives. Homo Sapiens is the only animal that suffers from boredom, and therein lies a clue to both the infection and the cure.

Keep them close, Dave.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Sep. 09 2007,01:07)]Depends also on what one considers a "wholesome environment". #I don't know if there ever was such thing as a wholesome environment. More often than not the "wholesomness" of ones environment depends on how much money the person or family had. Prior to public schooling the amount of education a child received revolved around how much money one had for books, resources, schooling, etc. #The rich being able to afford books, governesses, private tutors, private schools and colleges fared better than the poor for whom these things were our of reach and for whom little time was available for education. Public school leveled the playing field and played a role in the evolution of the now waning middle class. Public schools were not perfect for or aft 1967, noeither are parochial or private schools.

Scientific advancements since 1967 ? Were many and not limited to the medical sciences. #Lots of post 67 advancements in Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, etc. right up to the present growth and advancements in information technology, computer science, etc. To argue that science conked out in 67 is ludicrous.
Relativist claptrap. Objective truth exists, and so, too, do objective right and wrong which are its children.

My father died when I was eleven years old. My mother did not work; she made the decision that we would "make it" on the pittance that Social Security surviver benefits paid to her and to me: about $250 each per month until I reached the age of eighteen. She made that decision because she felt it more important to remain at home to raise me than to pursue the shallow "luxuries" of life. That was both a wise and a courageous decision. I never owned an automobile until I was twenty-two and serving in Europe. My father never owned one in his life.

One's "environment" is what a family makes it, and it is not dependent upon income. That is a modernist lie, a subjectivist assertion made as an excuse to abandon real responsibilities in the pursuit of those "luxuries" my mother had the sense, and the grit, to resist.

Advancements of Science to the rescue! Tell me exactly how the elucidation of the Quark or the theoretical foundations of the Black Hole have influenced the safety, happiness and future prospects of a child in the Bronx?

And, a reminder that you do not follow a line of reasoning very well: I never argued that "science conked out" at any point. I made reference only to the impact on standards of life and living. You may have attended a fine school, but it would seem you failed to learn how to think and analyse what is stated. That failing seems to be growing larger with each succeeding generation of graduates; it is a reflection of the steady reduction in the quality of liberal arts curricula.

[wv6z]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Sep. 07 2007,02:38)]Amusing. However, a few of the claims made during that presentation are a bit of a stretch and a few bogus and at least a couple of the TV shows mentioned are more 1970's than 60's. Nonetheless an amusing retrospect. Would I want to "bring back the 1960's" ? No, it would probably not be the best of ideas. For me the 1960's was mostly childhood, attending Catholic school, performing duties as altar boy on Sundays and thurifer on special occaisions, watching the rocket launches and splashdowns on TV (was considered mandatory to watch back then), tv shows like Batman, Superman, Get Smart, etc. and all those Westerns made in the 50's and earlier that were constantly shown on TV in the 60's that I hated then but love today.

Of course my real heyday was the 1970's when I roamed the streets with a gang of crazed maniacal demons till the wee hours.
OMFG! I think you're my twin brother. Do you want to be the evil twin, or shall I?

[ad1os]

Geez, if I wasn't there, I'd almost believe this was how the 60's were.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ad1os @ Sep. 09 2007,09:03)]Geez, if I wasn't there, I'd almost believe this was how the 60's were.
And how, precisely, is that? Or are we intruding on some private reverie?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 09 2007,05:14)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Sep. 09 2007,01:07)]Depends also on what one considers a "wholesome environment". I don't know if there ever was such thing as a wholesome environment. More often than not the "wholesomness" of ones environment depends on how much money the person or family had. Prior to public schooling the amount of education a child received revolved around how much money one had for books, resources, schooling, etc. The rich being able to afford books, governesses, private tutors, private schools and colleges fared better than the poor for whom these things were our of reach and for whom little time was available for education. Public school leveled the playing field and played a role in the evolution of the now waning middle class. Public schools were not perfect for or aft 1967, noeither are parochial or private schools.

Scientific advancements since 1967 ? Were many and not limited to the medical sciences. Lots of post 67 advancements in Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, etc. right up to the present growth and advancements in information technology, computer science, etc. To argue that science conked out in 67 is ludicrous.
Relativist claptrap. Objective truth exists, and so, too, do objective right and wrong which are its children.

My father died when I was eleven years old. My mother did not work; she made the decision that we would "make it" on the pittance that Social Security surviver benefits paid to her and to me: about $250 each per month until I reached the age of eighteen. She made that decision because she felt it more important to remain at home to raise me than to pursue the shallow "luxuries" of life. That was both a wise and a courageous decision. I never owned an automobile until I was twenty-two and serving in Europe. My father never owned one in his life.

One's "environment" is what a family makes it, and it is not dependent upon income. That is a modernist lie, a subjectivist assertion made as an excuse to abandon real responsibilities in the pursuit of those "luxuries" my mother had the sense, and the grit, to resist.

Advancements of Science to the rescue! Tell me exactly how the elucidation of the Quark or the theoretical foundations of the Black Hole have influenced the safety, happiness and future prospects of a child in the Bronx?

And, a reminder that you do not follow a line of reasoning very well: I never argued that "science conked out" at any point. I made reference only to the impact on standards of life and living. You may have attended a fine school, but it would seem you failed to learn how to think and analyse what is stated. That failing seems to be growing larger with each succeeding generation of graduates; it is a reflection of the steady reduction in the quality of liberal arts curricula.
Quote[/b] ]
Relativist claptrap. Objective truth exists, and so, too, do objective right and wrong which are its children.


It exists but you're not presenting it. Or at least I thought you were making a different connection.

Quote[/b] ]
My father died when I was eleven years old. My mother did not work; she made the decision that we would "make it" on the pittance that Social Security surviver benefits paid to her and to me: about $250 each per month until I reached the age of eighteen. She made that decision because she felt it more important to remain at home to raise me than to pursue the shallow "luxuries" of life. That was both a wise and a courageous decision. I never owned an automobile until I was twenty-two and serving in Europe. My father never owned one in his life.


Okay, so you grew up in a family modest means. Not a bad thing at all. I grew up rich although by today's standards my retired parents are not rich, nor am I personally wealthy. We always had a car, Does that make me better ? No, not at all. My parents had the means to send me to a decent college. Does that make me a better person ? No. Does it mean my life is more "wholesome" than someone who had no college ? No, not nessesarily Does it mean I am smarter than those who did not attend ? No. I know plenty of people who were self taught and are far smarter and appreciative of knowledge than many who did attend. Does it mean all those years of college were worthless ? No, having attended did put me in contact with many fine learned persons who enhanced my lifelong learning process and helped make education a rich and fulfilling experience. What we get out of life is largely determined by our own attitudes.



Quote[/b] ]
One's "environment" is what a family makes it, and it is not dependent upon income. That is a modernist lie, a subjectivist assertion made as an excuse to abandon real responsibilities in the pursuit of those "luxuries" my mother had the sense, and the grit, to resist.


True. You can have families wearing rags and sleeping under bridges with nothing but the rags on their back and no material wealth or food to eat whatsoever and they can be far more wholesome than the wealthiest family. Many have lived the life of poverty and have uncovered great wisdom, happiness, and riches far beyond what a billionare, king or emperor could dream.

But lets be realistic. In the real capitalist world that has been created and in which we life, income plays a vital role in quality of life. Yes, you can be poor, in rags, with nothing, but try dealing with the cops when they threaten you with arrest every time you pause to rest, where you cannot get proper medical care for your children, where there is not heat in winter, where proper sanitation cannot be achieved , where disease is rampant, etc. True, income won't bring happiness and the wealth of the person as an individual. True, material possessions are not needed for a wholesome life. But they are sure fun to have. And a decent income will make for a much nicer quality of life from which one can enjoy and appreciate that wholesome family. Particularly in our capital based system that places such extreme emphasis on monetary wealth.


Quote[/b] ]
Advancements of Science to the rescue! Tell me exactly how the elucidation of the Quark or the theoretical foundations of the Black Hole have influenced the safety, happiness and future prospects of a child in the Bronx?


Ah, the Bronx. South Bronx in particular. My old home. Where I was born, where my family was from, where my grandfather lived and worked till the day he died. I remember walking those streets as a 11 year old boy and being offered heroin (for sale of course) by the local dealers who lived only 2 doors from my grandfather. Back then I resisted , today perhaps it woild fit the bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I remember peeking into the windows of the abandoned building next door where the junkies shot up and the local hookers practiced their art. I remember seeing a guy setting fire to the abandoned building right behind my grandfathers home. 1970-1973 in the South Bronx, what a time it was.

Oh yeah, science. Since when is it the role of science to improve the quality of life in the South Bronx ? Science is merely a paradigm of thought that we use to try and learn more about the universe around us. Now it is possible that from acquiring such knowledge we may find some practical application that improves the quality of life for all. Or we may not.


Quote[/b] ]

And, a reminder that you do not follow a line of reasoning very well: I never argued that "science conked out" at any point. I made reference only to the impact on standards of life and living.


It seemed to me that you were trying to argue that somehow the ideologies of passionate youth somehow killed science in 1967. Everyone knows it was Mayor John V Lindsay who did that. Actually I shouldn't pick on good ol' Vllet. I prefer Lindsay over what we have these days. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.

Quote[/b] ]
You may have attended a fine school, but it would seem you failed to learn how to think and analyse what is stated. That failing seems to be growing larger with each succeeding generation of graduates; it is a reflection of the steady reduction in the quality of liberal arts curricula.


I think my comprehension is far above average. I feel I have a keen ability to understand what I am reading, even when dealing with subjects that I am not familiar with or over my head I can often get a solid grasp of the general gist of the discussion,

The problem with todays undergraduate colleges is an overall bad attitute towards education. Too many students see college as a stepping stone to a job rather than a learning experience. As a result college is wasted on a lot of people who probably shouldn't be there. Far too much time spent on spring breaks, booze cruises, drunken escapades, and other trivial absurdities and far too little time in front of an open book. As a result I see complete idiots who tell me they graduated college. I see people with undergrad math & science degrees who can't solve simple problems that I give them or reason out basic proofs. I wonder how they graduated. As I dismiss them I suggest they re-enroll and take the courses all over again.

Just the other day an undergrad student was telling me he was assigned to read Shakespeare. He started moaning about how Shakespeare is pure garbage and not even written in English. "This is college material" I wondered as I inwardly chuckled at his latent idiocy.