Comments on: Welcome, Angry People http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/ Truth Will Prevail Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:12:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Julie M. Smith http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306473 Julie M. Smith Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:21:30 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306473 Well, thanks for all of the comments. We usually shut comments down at around 100 here, so I'm a little late. Please don't be angry. ;) Well, thanks for all of the comments. We usually shut comments down at around 100 here, so I’m a little late. Please don’t be angry. ;)

]]> By: Geary http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306448 Geary Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:27:46 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306448 I'm just really sorry I missed the original #33. I’m just really sorry I missed the original #33.

]]> By: Blake Messinger http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306442 Blake Messinger Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:34:02 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306442 While driving from Los Angeles to my home in Palm Springs around 5 AM the day after Christmas, I heard an interview on NPR with Sheryl Crow. She mentioned that she seems to be happy now, less angry and sees “things” (life, politics perhaps?) different: more gray then just “Black & White”. Here is an excerpt from the interview: http://www.wbur.org/npr/121925844 SCOTT SIMON, NPR: How you doing now? Ms. CROW: I am so great. I am - you know, I've entered a really beautiful, serene phase of my life. Unfortunately, you get - you let go of sort of that us against them. And some of your edge goes away, which I think - we've watched a lot of our young, fiery artists become adults and we go well, they don't write the great stuff anymore. But there is just something wonderful about getting older, you know? There is something wonderful about living in the gray instead of the black and white. She went on to credit part of this change to her two and a half year old son. I liked what I heard and have pondered "living in the gray" for the past week. With the baby boomers squandering almost every advantage given them from natural resources to a lot of hard work by their previous generations, the generations fallowing the baby boomers for the first time in this countries history have less prospects looking at them and will face a much less stable future. We are less likely to have a real job with real benefits, to continuing wars, a planet warming and resources going at remarkable rates that can’t be replenished and a future looks bleaker. I recall books I have read in the past telling me that once I get older I too will become less “liberal” and more conservative, the common refrain being the older you get the wiser. Perhaps the later part of that statement is true, but I’m happy this prediction was incorrect. Anger can be a hot and consuming flame. And as our bodies grow feebler; our joints tire and we start having the pressures of offspring or jobs or many other issues facing adults, many start to move away from the heat and settle in. And with our capitalistic-atomized society more and more attention is given to the job or family in the final attempt to keep some kind of community around us. . Many marginalized people in this country and around the world are angry, and most of them don't seem to understand why that might be. It seems to me that they pick apart around the margins with less prospects, many cling to what they have in hope of following their baby boomer folk’s philosophy, a real “head-in-the-sand” philosophy. They often fight the rear guard actions in hopes of keeping what they got, at the expense of vast majority in this world that have so much less. Too deny our affluence, to a great extent, is based on consumption of other people resources is a real head-in-the-sand ignorance nobody likes to acknowledge. Instead of building “Victory Gardens” like they did in WWII and paying for over half the war as it was fought with War Bonds, most conservatives and some liberals are happy with status quo shopping and damning their own children with all the war debt. Instead of using their affluence and putting solar panels on their houses, they are happy to replace a couple of light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. No real solutions for the problems of the world just quick fixes, sounds like the American political system way of solving problems don't you think? The only good news that I can see is that there are many “youth” who are living more modestly, trying not to buy into the run-a-way capitalism of their parents. Mostly, I suspect, because they pay attention to the news reports of job lost, a real lack of corporate concern for them and environmental woes. They have seen that both Clinton and Obama are the best hope, if hope means center-right corporate polices and continuous wars. They see the pressures and hopefully will continue to try something else then the failed modeling of their parents. So anger is a tricky thing. No one can sustain it continuously. But calling things “gray” when their truly are black and white issues is the real ultimate cop-out of the previous generation and those who have affluence now. So there in lies the conundrum, I still like the idea of "living in the gray". After living 50 years in what I see as a rather remarkable life, I would like to think I know what degree of "change" worth fighting for. For me I am resolved that part of the fight includes peace of mind, and I now chose to focus on the body, spirit and mind and how best to take care of it, in an attempt to live in the gray with some influence to the world I am a part of. It won't be easy but I will give it all it takes and hopefully good "change" will follow in some small way, by living in the gray. While driving from Los Angeles to my home in Palm Springs around 5 AM the day after Christmas, I heard an interview on NPR with Sheryl Crow. She mentioned that she seems to be happy now, less angry and sees “things” (life, politics perhaps?) different: more gray then just “Black & White”. Here is an excerpt from the interview:
http://www.wbur.org/npr/121925844
SCOTT SIMON, NPR: How you doing now?
Ms. CROW: I am so great. I am – you know, I’ve entered a really beautiful, serene phase of my life. Unfortunately, you get – you let go of sort of that us against them. And some of your edge goes away, which I think – we’ve watched a lot of our young, fiery artists become adults and we go well, they don’t write the great stuff anymore. But there is just something wonderful about getting older, you know? There is something wonderful about living in the gray instead of the black and white.
She went on to credit part of this change to her two and a half year old son. I liked what I heard and have pondered “living in the gray” for the past week.
With the baby boomers squandering almost every advantage given them from natural resources to a lot of hard work by their previous generations, the generations fallowing the baby boomers for the first time in this countries history have less prospects looking at them and will face a much less stable future. We are less likely to have a real job with real benefits, to continuing wars, a planet warming and resources going at remarkable rates that can’t be replenished and a future looks bleaker.
I recall books I have read in the past telling me that once I get older I too will become less “liberal” and more conservative, the common refrain being the older you get the wiser. Perhaps the later part of that statement is true, but I’m happy this prediction was incorrect.
Anger can be a hot and consuming flame. And as our bodies grow feebler; our joints tire and we start having the pressures of offspring or jobs or many other issues facing adults, many start to move away from the heat and settle in. And with our capitalistic-atomized society more and more attention is given to the job or family in the final attempt to keep some kind of community around us. .
Many marginalized people in this country and around the world are angry, and most of them don’t seem to understand why that might be. It seems to me that they pick apart around the margins with less prospects, many cling to what they have in hope of following their baby boomer folk’s philosophy, a real “head-in-the-sand” philosophy. They often fight the rear guard actions in hopes of keeping what they got, at the expense of vast majority in this world that have so much less. Too deny our affluence, to a great extent, is based on consumption of other people resources is a real head-in-the-sand ignorance nobody likes to acknowledge.
Instead of building “Victory Gardens” like they did in WWII and paying for over half the war as it was fought with War Bonds, most conservatives and some liberals are happy with status quo shopping and damning their own children with all the war debt. Instead of using their affluence and putting solar panels on their houses, they are happy to replace a couple of light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. No real solutions for the problems of the world just quick fixes, sounds like the American political system way of solving problems don’t you think?
The only good news that I can see is that there are many “youth” who are living more modestly, trying not to buy into the run-a-way capitalism of their parents. Mostly, I suspect, because they pay attention to the news reports of job lost, a real lack of corporate concern for them and environmental woes. They have seen that both Clinton and Obama are the best hope, if hope means center-right corporate polices and continuous wars. They see the pressures and hopefully will continue to try something else then the failed modeling of their parents.
So anger is a tricky thing. No one can sustain it continuously. But calling things “gray” when their truly are black and white issues is the real ultimate cop-out of the previous generation and those who have affluence now. So there in lies the conundrum, I still like the idea of “living in the gray”. After living 50 years in what I see as a rather remarkable life, I would like to think I know what degree of “change” worth fighting for. For me I am resolved that part of the fight includes peace of mind, and I now chose to focus on the body, spirit and mind and how best to take care of it, in an attempt to live in the gray with some influence to the world I am a part of. It won’t be easy but I will give it all it takes and hopefully good “change” will follow in some small way, by living in the gray.

]]> By: msg http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306430 msg Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:18:00 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306430 Dan #74--thank you for making my point clearer. I was speaking to a republican in a vocabulary he would understand. Dan #74–thank you for making my point clearer. I was speaking to a republican in a vocabulary he would understand.

]]> By: msg http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306429 msg Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:09:42 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306429 I like my father's view of politics. Sometimes the country leans too far left or right and then we need the opposite party to come in and bring things closer to the center again--we need a two-party system for our government to function as well as it can and be as balanced as possible. (Remember, when Christ comes again we won't have anything but a righteous theocracy! Any previous earthly form of government isn't what the Lord will set up.) I have always believed and still do that all people,(especially LDS) have more in common than they have that's different. I like my father’s view of politics. Sometimes the country leans too far left or right and then we need the opposite party to come in and
bring things closer to the center again–we need a two-party system for
our government to function as well as it can and be as balanced as possible. (Remember, when Christ comes again we won’t have anything but a righteous theocracy! Any previous earthly form of government isn’t what the Lord will set up.)

I have always believed and still do that all people,(especially LDS) have more in common than they have that’s different.

]]> By: Dan http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306426 Dan Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:39:07 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306426 WJ, <blockquote>Dan, I’m surprised at your sensitivity in light of your stated philosophy that civility is not that important when talking politics</blockquote> Yeah, you got me there. Let me clarify. I prefer a clean fight, but am ready to go down and dirty if need be. :) WJ,

Dan, I’m surprised at your sensitivity in light of your stated philosophy that civility is not that important when talking politics

Yeah, you got me there. Let me clarify. I prefer a clean fight, but am ready to go down and dirty if need be. :)

]]> By: Chris Henrichsen http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306420 Chris Henrichsen Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:06:08 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306420 WJ, Give it a rest. it seems that everyone has made their feelings and positions clear. This is no longer productive. WJ,

Give it a rest. it seems that everyone has made their feelings and positions clear. This is no longer productive.

]]> By: WJ http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306419 WJ Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:00:15 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306419 djinn, "Do I think he was lying? Of course not. I think he just misremembered." Wow, just wow. So Benson was channeling his inner Mark McGuire, is that your conclusion? How reasonable do you think it is that he misremembered such an experience? "Do I put more stock in what he published in 1962 than what he said in a speech in 1966? Yes, I do." Why, exactly? Could he not later have expanded on a previous statement? Could Khrushchev not have made the same or similar comment on several occasions and with different interlocutors? djinn, “Do I think he was lying? Of course not. I think he just misremembered.”

Wow, just wow. So Benson was channeling his inner Mark McGuire, is that your conclusion? How reasonable do you think it is that he misremembered such an experience?

“Do I put more stock in what he published in 1962 than what he said in a speech in 1966? Yes, I do.”

Why, exactly? Could he not later have expanded on a previous statement? Could Khrushchev not have made the same or similar comment on several occasions and with different interlocutors?

]]> By: WJ http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306417 WJ Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:56:58 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306417 Dan (15): "You know, I used to believe in the principle of being civil when talking politics. Then I learned just how civil our Founding Fathers were to each other when talking politics and I have to wonder, why would anyone try to limit what he can say when talking politics?" Dan (135): "WJ, Please do not insult. I’ve not been insulting to anyone here. I am listening. I disagree. There is a big difference." Dan, I'm surprised at your sensitivity in light of your stated philosophy that civility is not that important when talking politics. My point is simply that you have little regard for the rules of logic (or reasonableness) in your interpretation of Benson's statement, and I think you have contorted yourself so far into a pretzel defending your position, that your ego doesn't allow you now to try and extricate yourself. Just my opinion is all. Dan (15): “You know, I used to believe in the principle of being civil when talking politics. Then I learned just how civil our Founding Fathers were to each other when talking politics and I have to wonder, why would anyone try to limit what he can say when talking politics?”

Dan (135): “WJ,

Please do not insult. I’ve not been insulting to anyone here. I am listening. I disagree. There is a big difference.”

Dan, I’m surprised at your sensitivity in light of your stated philosophy that civility is not that important when talking politics. My point is simply that you have little regard for the rules of logic (or reasonableness) in your interpretation of Benson’s statement, and I think you have contorted yourself so far into a pretzel defending your position, that your ego doesn’t allow you now to try and extricate yourself. Just my opinion is all.

]]> By: djinn http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/welcome-angry-people/#comment-306416 djinn Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:35:23 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=10941#comment-306416 WJ, Benson in 1962 (twice!, once in print) said that Khrushchev was "reported to have said" said quote. Benson didn't say he had personally heard it. It wasn't until 1966 (7 years after his meeting with Mr. K) that Benson changed his story to say that the quote had been said to him directly. Do I think he was lying? Of course not. I think he just misremembered. Do I put more stock in what he published in 1962 than what he said in a speech in 1966? Yes, I do. WJ, Benson in 1962 (twice!, once in print) said that Khrushchev was “reported to have said” said quote. Benson didn’t say he had personally heard it. It wasn’t until 1966 (7 years after his meeting with Mr. K) that Benson changed his story to say that the quote had been said to him directly. Do I think he was lying? Of course not. I think he just misremembered. Do I put more stock in what he published in 1962 than what he said in a speech in 1966? Yes, I do.

]]>