The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

Somewhere around the late sixties, rebelliousness became a product, a commodity to be merchandised, either for dollars or for political capital, which in turn led to dollars. Those who thought they were sticking it to the man were in fact being stuck *by* the man. The man just grew his hair out, put on a pair of raggedy jeans, lit up a joint -- and laughed all the way to the bank. And he's still laughing, more now than ever.

The role of music in all this is interesting. I had essentially no exposure to rock-type music growing up -- it wasn't part of our culture in the neighborhood where I lived, none of my friends paid any attention to it (being too preoccupied with baseball to care), and we never had any of it in the house. So any of the attitudes and beliefs promoted by it passed me right by -- when we'd see a rock act on Ed Sullivan or whatever we'd sit there dumbfounded or turn the channel until it was over. I've said before that "The Sixties" never happened in my town, and I think this is a big part of the reason why.

We also didn't have anyone in our family or our neighborhood involved in Vietnam. My father just missed -- he did his hitch in the early sixties, and was out by the time of the escalation. So for us, it was simply something you saw on television, something happening somewhere far away, and no more relevant to our lives than the weather forecast for Borneo. We knew about it, but were completely detached from it. We stood up when the flag went by, we went to church (Methodist or Congregationalist, your choice), we respected authority and were taught to respect authority, we were convinced that some crazy Communist in Texas killed JFK and that some lunatic foreigner killed Bobby, and it never would have occured to us to think otherwise. We never experienced "The Sixties."

 

[sheeplady]

HoosierDaddy, thank you for that explanation. My mother had a similar experience, and we've actually talked about this a lot growing up. She would describe herself as a hippie- and she is still interested in things like organic gardening, alternative medicine, etc. She sometimes talks about how "lost" she felt when she was young. There was a feeling of needing change- something had to give. And everyone who was a leader for change- that gave them hope- was getting killed. Everything felt like a battleground, and my mother felt like the young were losing. There was a very distinctive feeling that everything was fleeting.

One of the things she never understood, however, was the anti-war movements' hate for soldiers. One of the reasons she got involved in the movement is to prevent more young men from getting killed or injured. She eventually left in disgust, not because everyone was like that, but because bad apples were exploiting the movement. What has always upset her is the portrayal that one must either be a soldier-hater or a war-monger.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Thank you sheeplady.
Your Mom has a good 'feel' for those times.
Debating the Viet Nam war..I think..would get very political here. Let me just say that I fall somewhere in the middle concerning my feelings about it. However..we were never in it to win it. I'll leave it at that.
HD

 

[Widebrim]

I have always been repulsed that the military was spit on and yelled at when they were coming home. My dad was treated that way too. He doesn't like to talk about it, but he's thrilled that the men and women fighting today don't get treated as badly.... at least not as often.... I have a few stories of that kind of treatment from the husband (he's a recruiter now), but guess who is doing it even after all these years?

Yes, rue, thank God that servicemen/women are better treated now. However, to use the term "fighting" and apply it to both sexes is inaccurate. Although there is the occasional female helicopter pilot, women are not generally allowed into combat MOSs (jobs), such as Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery. Despite what the media might want us to believe, combat operations are carried on by males. Most females stay "inside the wire" (on post) carrying out other duties. (An exception might be a female medic, but I at least never saw one of them go on a combat mission.) Do women who do go outside the wire on a non-combat mission sometimes become casualties? Of course, but so do males serving in non-combat missions; that doesn't imply, though, that they were fighting. No disrespect to servicewoman, but we shouldn't make it appear that men and women are doing the same missions in the armed forces.

 

[Widebrim]

I've read many historical facts...or takes on that era...and shook my head(just like my Father)..'that wasn't the way it really was'!

That is the truth, HD. Regarding hippies, for example, they were a minority (although they did receive a lot of "publicity"). Many young people in the late-'60s/early '70s may have adopted the outward marks of the hippy lifestyle, but not the actual philosophy. And not everybody dressed like Jimi Hendrix, Mick Jagger, or Janis Joplin. Heck, when I was in junior/senior high during those years, we boys couldn't wear our sideburns below the earlobes, and we certainly weren't allowed to have beards (and this was in Los Angeles, an area often portrayed as a radical conduit of those times). Was there some pot use at my school(s)? Yes, but it was rare; kids were more into cigarettes and alcohol at the time. Generalizations about servicemen at that time also skewer the facts. Not all GIs in Vietnam were druggies who painted peace signs on their M1 helmet covers and tried to "frag" their superiors. And most young men did not publicly burn their draft cards.

When it comes to history, those who make the most noise are usually the ones who get the most notoriety, and consequently come to represent their respective eras to future generations.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

When it comes to history, those who make the most noise are usually the ones who get the most notoriety, and consequently come to represent their respective eras to future generations.

Right. So the 2010's will be misunderstood as the age of Botox, spray tans, implants and puerile pursuits.

By the way, I love New Jersey. The show "Jersey Shore" has little do to with the state.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

II have a few stories of that kind of treatment from the husband (he's a recruiter now)

Off topic, but my heart goes out to you. My husband was on recruiting duty and it is a very trying time for families!

 

[rue]

Off topic, but my heart goes out to you. My husband was on recruiting duty and it is a very trying time for families!

Thank you It's the hardest job in the military or at least that's what they all say. Most of them would rather be at war, as I'm sure you've heard.
Thank you for your husband's service, if I haven't said so before

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Thank you It's the hardest job in the military or at least that's what they all say. Most of them would rather be at war, as I'm sure you've heard.
Thank you for your husband's service, if I haven't said so before

Thank YOU for your service- families serve, too!

Yes, I've heard that, too. It's not fun!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Right. So the 2010's will be misunderstood as the age of Botox, spray tans, implants and puerile pursuits.

By the way, I love New Jersey. The show "Jersey Shore" has little do to with the state.

I have never watched the program, "Jersey Shores" and to me, for me, I think, the show would have no attraction or entertainment value to give me a desire to watch it.

I have often wondered how or why shows like that even get watched at all? How would anyone find those shows "entertaining"?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I have often wondered how or why shows like that even get watched at all? How would anyone find those shows "entertaining"?

Same reason people used to go to freak shows.

 

[Fletch]

The difference is they don't know they're looking at freaks. The shows teach life lessons no one really wants to own up to.

 

[C-dot]

I have never watched the program, "Jersey Shores" and to me, for me, I think, the show would have no attraction or entertainment value to give me a desire to watch it.

I have often wondered how or why shows like that even get watched at all? How would anyone find those shows "entertaining"?

I know quite a few people who enjoy watching Jersey Shore, and some are the most unlikely of characters. When I asked them the very same question, they all responded that it was "funny to see the drama they get into." My impression was that they were experiencing a kind of schadenfreude: They're laughing at these emotionally immature party-goers, all the while feeling satisfied that they are better people (I'll admit I have the same feeling if I watch it, though I laugh a lot less.)

Of course, the really funny part is how financially successful those people are. Most normal folk work their whole lives and never see that much money. So, while we're shaking our heads and swelling with pride, they're being paid for their antics... And there's something very wrong with that.

 

[Viola]

Yes, rue, thank God that servicemen/women are better treated now. However, to use the term "fighting" and apply it to both sexes is inaccurate. Although there is the occasional female helicopter pilot, women are not generally allowed into combat MOSs (jobs), such as Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery. Despite what the media might want us to believe, combat operations are carried on by males. Most females stay "inside the wire" (on post) carrying out other duties. (An exception might be a female medic, but I at least never saw one of them go on a combat mission.) Do women who do go outside the wire on a non-combat mission sometimes become casualties? Of course, but so do males serving in non-combat missions; that doesn't imply, though, that they were fighting. No disrespect to servicewoman, but we shouldn't make it appear that men and women are doing the same missions in the armed forces.

Servicewomen are currently MPs and in the Seabees. I have never met a Seabee that would say they "don't fight" and throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the military police of all branches have been used more in a combat arms role than their normal combat support.

Of course if you are serving in the military in any capacity that involves getting shot at (even occasionally or intermittantly) I'd say that counts as "fighting." [huh]

 

[scooter]

For those that think women don't fight, ask the female Army vet who was decorated with a Silver Star, I believe. Her convoy was ambushed and she was manning a .50 caliber gun. As any veteran will tell you, the primary target is the heavy guns, making her THE primary target. She lit 'em up with the big .50 and is credited with saving 50 lives, if memory serves. She was actually wounded in the firefight and didn't even realize it until after it was all over. Just be respectful, lest you make her angry!

 

[PoohBang]

and I didn't even say a word this time...:biggrin3:

 

[rue]

^ lol

 

[Tomasso]

and I didn't even say a word this time...:biggrin3:

Yes, but we know what you were thinking....

 

[C-dot]

Servicewomen are currently MPs and in the Seabees. I have never met a Seabee that would say they "don't fight" and throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the military police of all branches have been used more in a combat arms role than their normal combat support.

Of course if you are serving in the military in any capacity that involves getting shot at (even occasionally or intermittantly) I'd say that counts as "fighting." [huh]

Oh yes, I knew quite a few women in the Canadian Army who served as infantiers and weapons technicians, and many of them were in the throes of action in Afghanistan. They were some tough cookies. I know quite a few female sailors in my boyfriend's unit, too, but as far as I know they have never been overseas.

I've never met a female medic, though I'm sure there are many. Medics have an extremely tough job, and they're often shot at.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I know quite a few people who enjoy watching Jersey Shore, and some are the most unlikely of characters. When I asked them the very same question, they all responded that it was "funny to see the drama they get into." My impression was that they were experiencing a kind of schadenfreude: They're laughing at these emotionally immature party-goers, all the while feeling satisfied that they are better people (I'll admit I have the same feeling if I watch it, though I laugh a lot less.)

Of course, the really funny part is how financially successful those people are. Most normal folk work their whole lives and never see that much money. So, while we're shaking our heads and swelling with pride, they're being paid for their antics... And there's something very wrong with that.

I agree, and really if you see any of the people that have been on that show, they seem to have the I.Q. of a goldfish.