Trapped on a Delta flight from JFK to LAX yesterday, I watched a lot more CNN than I normally do, slogging through the Situation Room followed Ms. Campbell Brown augmented by a chorus of Obama idolaters that made David Gergen, of all people, seem like the voice of reason. (He was the only one to even mention McCain in a show that lasted close to half an hour.)
Today I noticed an article by Brown on the CNN site that encapsulates her show – Behind the Scenes: Demand for change strong forty years later. Here’s a taste: In America in the late ’60s, a generation was grappling with an unpopular war and an unpopular president. The country was impatient; there were massive pressures for social change.
I am struck with the photos of the millions along the tracks, a spontaneous outpouring of grief, uniting Americans of all races and all ages — rich and poor alike.
Etc., etc. What’s interesting is Brown herself was born in 1968. She didn’t get her chance to “turn on, tune in, drop out” like us oldsters. If she had, she might not feel exactly the same way, making the familiar but absurd equation between those “unpopular wars” Vietnam and Iraq (and, by extension, the War on Terror). She and many others like her of her age seem to have developed a form of “generation envy” that clouds their thinking, a kind of nostalgia for nothing. They missed out on being cool, dropping acid and listening to “The White Album.” Well, I’m sorry – you’ll just have to live with it. But history moves on. Having been there, I can attest that 1968 and 2008 aren’t remotely similar. And the enemy we are facing isn’t remotely the same.
She and many others like her of her age seem to have developed a form of “generation envy” that clouds their thinking, a kind of nostalgia for nothing.
And what might contribute to such focused nostalgia? It couldn’t be the generation that perches at the top of the MSM, could it? After all, they came of age turning on, tuning in, fomenting leftist ‘social change’, etc etc.
Nothing has been more obvious in the slanted stories of the last six years or so, than the barely considered, reflexive decision by these opinion-shapers that this is a replay of the battle that they won by the methods of ’68. All they have to do is dust off the old well-rehearsed polemics and let fly the dogs of propaganda, repackaged for the 24-hour news cycle.
Considering that the American public has been incessantly submerged in a flood of such propaganda for the last two election cycles, it’s a wonder that there’s a Republican left standing.
“…1968 and 2008 aren’t remotely similar. And the enemy we are facing isn’t remotely the same. ”
Right because then the enemy was the Soviet Union and Mao’s china and now our enemy is guys hiding in caves and building bombs out of old auto parts. Was that your point, Roger?
“…1968 and 2008 aren’t remotely similar. And the enemy we are facing isn’t remotely the same. ”
Right because then the enemy was the Soviet Union and Mao’s china and now our enemy is guys hiding in caves and building bombs out of old auto parts. Was that your point, Roger?
She and many others like her of her age seem to have developed a form of “generation envy” that clouds their thinking, a kind of nostalgia for nothing.
Since 1968 we have improved our GDP per capita from #17 overall to #8 in 2005,
the last year for which data is available.
1968 – http://tinyurl.com/438qp2
2005 – http://tinyurl.com/43c7jn
it is a nostalgia for nothing.
The point is, most of us have already ridden that LSD-fueled peace, love and understanding bus; I, for one, got off the magic bus the day I watched jets loaded with fuel fly right into the World Trade Center, then the Pentagon.
Thankfully those Americans on Flight 93 took action and were ‘ready to roll’.
Looking back however, all that time I was high on Happy I don’t recall the Soviet Union having the balls to do what ‘guys hiding in caves’ were able to do.
Infidel Bloggers Alliance writer sentenced to prison in Finland:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/06/fellow-iba-blogger-sentenced-to-prison.html
“now our enemy is guys hiding in caves and building bombs out of old auto parts.”
Iran is a cave. Who knew?
“‘…1968 and 2008 aren’t remotely similar. And the enemy we are facing isn’t remotely the same.’
Right because then the enemy was the Soviet Union and Mao’s china and now our enemy is guys hiding in caves and building bombs out of old auto parts. Was that your point, Roger?”
I would not want to speak for Roger, tomkow. But speaking for myself I don’t find them remotely similar either. Islamism is a form of religious facism fourteen hundred years old with more TRUE (uncoereced) adherents than the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, neither of whom were able to attack America on its soil (or wanted to). Islamism is ultimately far more dangerous because you cannot prove believers wrong.
tomkow…it is very dangerous to assume that, because new a threat doesn’t look like the old threat, that it’s not as dangerous.
For example: When the idea of using airplanes to attack ships was mooted in the 1920s, many naval officers laughed. A 1925 biplane didn’t *look* very impressive compared with a battleship or heavy cruiser. But we all know what happened.
Today’s enemies might not have Panzer divisions like Nazi Germany, or strategic bombers and ballistic missiles like to Soviet Union, or huge armies like Mao’s China. But that doesn’t mean they’re not as dangerous.
it is a nostalgia for nothing.
Having “come of age” in the sixties I’ve gotta say that pining for ’68 is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard of.
Jk says, Islamism is a form of religious facism fourteen hundred years old with more TRUE (uncoereced) adherents than the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, neither of whom were able to attack America on its soil (or wanted to).
You do understand that Islam and Islamism are not the same thing, don’t you? Religion is now as it has always been, a cover for political goals. Amazingly, everyone’s magic invisibile wizard in the sky thinks JUST LIKE THEM! What are the odds?
Islamism is ultimately far more dangerous because you cannot prove believers wrong.
And this is different from any other political philosphy? How many communists, fascists, or even “base” Democrats or Republcians would switch ideologies if they were “prov[en] wrong”? As Simon and Garfunkel put it in “The Boxer” (coincidentally written in 1968), “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
jdr: Iran is a cave. Who knew?
Iran is our enemy? Crap. Maybe we should have propped up that Saddam guy in Iraq. I hear he hated them too.
syn: Looking back however, all that time I was high on Happy I don’t recall the Soviet Union having the balls to do what ‘guys hiding in caves’ were able to do.
Wow, that must have been some good Happy, because I don’t think anyone has ever accused the Soviets of being soft. If taking down a couple of civilian buildings when nobody was watching all of a sudden beats out the Eastern Front, the GULAGs, and an ICBM arsenal aimed right at our collective head, standards really have changed lately.
photon: Today’s enemies might not have Panzer divisions like Nazi Germany, or strategic bombers and ballistic missiles like to Soviet Union, or huge armies like Mao’s China. But that doesn’t mean they’re not as dangerous.
No, their lack of ability to project power means they’re not as dangerous.
Shochu John… Excellent post. No doubt you are familiar with the Mecca and Medina Qurans and the precedence of the latter and its role in the definition of jihad. Of course they are unthreatening cave dwelling primitives. And of course you are correct that they are unable to project power. That they were able to blow up the World Trade Center twice was an accident. Indeed, you are further correct, the ability to exploit Western Technology is a paper tiger. Good racist views. As we say, In Shochu Veritas.
Jk,
Two civilian buildings that were destroyed almost seven years ago is not something that charcterizes an ability to project power. In terms of the size and wealth of this country, it was a trivial hit. Frankly, I am at a loss as to why you people are still obsessed with it. Perhaps my racism is blinding me to its true significance.
“Iran is our enemy?”
You know like um that little embassy takeover thing in ’79 or Beirut bombings or Khobar towers. They keep like you know keep TRYING TO KILL US.
“Two civilian buildings that were destroyed almost seven years ago is not something that charcterizes an ability to project power.”
Are you an idiot in real life?
Roger: This post is edifyingly perceptive. I can never understand why the new-age hippies yearn for the 60′s. The lawlessness and the ignorance of that generation, inspired by a revolution that never happened, is bewildering. I remember so well my sojurns with my high school friends, taking the train into San Francisco and the bus to Haight-Ashbury. We used to watch the hippies on LSD frolic around half-nakedly, with their hairy armpits and intrusive body odor. They lived like communal pigs protesting their country and the freedom it gave them to act irresponsibly. It all came crashing down in the moral decay and stagflation of the 70′s.
I fear the Reagan boom is giving way to the 60′s redux, with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann taking the place of Abbey Hoffman and Tom Haden.
You hit the bullseye with this one, Roger. As was often said in ’68, when I was 24, right on.
Roger, doyou suppose if we buy them a complete Beatles box set and a couple tabs of windowpane they’ll shut the fuck up andleave the rest of us alone?
Two civilian buildings that were destroyed almost seven years ago is not something that charcterizes an ability to project power. In terms of the size and wealth of this country, it was a trivial hit. Frankly, I am at a loss as to why you people are still obsessed with it. Perhaps my racism is blinding me to its true significance.
John, I think you were almost onto something in the post above this one: no, the Islamic fascists and adherents of Islam are not one and the same, any more than the Italian Fascisti, the Francoists, or the Bolsheviks were indistinguishable from the Italian people, the Spanish, and the Russians. But then, that’s why we call them “Islamic fascists” and not simply Muslims. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be more committed Islamic fascists than there were committed Maoists or Leninists; it just becomes a quantitative question. My guess is that it’s probably a wash, and in any case there aren’t now many committed Maoists or Leninists left anywhere but in London and in US universities.
Similarly, you’re right that their ability to project power — as in all wars — is the real measure of their danger. That’s why the complaints about the Iraq campaign are, at the bottom of it, wrong-headed: by eliminating a major source of cash, and by cutting communications along the fertile crescent, the ability of the Islamic fascists to project power has been dramatically reduced. (Just look at the number of attacks since the war started, versus before.)
The notion that the attack on the WTC didn’t cause major damage is so absurd as to require idiological blindness. It wasn’t an attack on two buildings and the murder of 3,000-odd civilians that did the damage, it was the attack on the world’s financial transaction hub. People who weren’t in the business aren’t as aware of this as they ought to be: at the time of the attack, something like a third to a half of all international financial transaction in the world went through that four block area, and mostly through that cluster of buildings.
The loss from that attack wasn’t just a couple of billion dollars of real estate and a “mere” three thousand people (although, since I worked in that building and that area, I tend to take those rather personally; it’s only “liberals” who seem to be able to dismiss a few “broken eggs”.) The loss was literally in the trillions of dollars. That’s “trillions” with a T, as in many thousands of billions with a B.
Dismissing that as trivial, of little importance, doesn’t even stand up to an evaluation in mere dollars, not to mention the other costs.
I was just mentioning to a generation double x’er or whatever they’re called these day, that one of the best things that ever happened to me was after finishing college in 1966 was being drafted. Not only did I grow up real quick, but I had the honor of missing the last 4 years of that decade.
I listened to “The White Album” today in honor of this thread, and it seems to have aged well. Nice dis of Chairman Mao in there too.
“Not only did I grow up real quick, but I had the honor of missing the last 4 years of that decade.” – promo guy.
McCain missed `67 through `72, I believe.
“:with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann taking the place of Abbey Hoffman and Tom Haden.” With greater self importance, more nuance, and lesser intelligence–much, much less intelligence. And the intelligence level of Hoffman and Haden was pretty minimal to begin with.
Hey, I remember those days and the lefties of the time who were raising hell did not really consider the Soviet Union or Mao to be our enemies. Only in retrospect do they agree that the Khmer Rouge was brutal. Take it from someone who was there to see and hear it, they thought the commies were groovy.
Power to the People.
And the truth is most of the Democrats out there trying to hang Bush right now supported going after Saddam. They supported Clinton when he passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. They had no problem with the military strikes of the 90s and they never questioned the intel. Not so long as the majority of Americans were behind them. And then when that changed, they had to find a way to cover their asses. And if Iran is not our enemy why do they keep shouting Death to America?!?
As for 1968, thanks to the Silent Majority, the hippies and the peaceniks got their asses handed to them.
TerryeL, I agree.
I would like to add that every generation has the opportunity to govern. Today, it is the generation of the 1960s.
In my opinion, many people of that generation are infatuated with Obama because he is a throwback to the extreme liberalism of that era when Marxist thought, socialism, free sex (although in reality nothing is ever free), anti-Americanism (the seeds of blame America for all of the problems in the world) and atheism (black liberation theology is not Christianity, it is a form of social revolution)(John Lennon – Imagine). While Obama is from the 1960s generation, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and reflects those beliefs.
The appeal is nostalgia, longing for the good old days. It is emotional and not rational. It is ultimately dangerous.
Now, the USA must make it through this period of time without enacting all of the stupid ideas and ideals held in esteem by many in the 1960s.
I was too young to experience it firsthand. I’d appreciate comments on my thesis.
Typo, Obama is not from the 1960s, but was raised in part by his mother who was.
Two civilian buildings that were destroyed almost seven years ago is not something that characterizes an ability to project power. In terms of the size and wealth of this country, it was a trivial hit.
I’m not sure if saying “almost seven years ago” is supposed to somehow lessen the impact of the attack, or make up for the stupidity that follows.
I don’t think the kind of ignorance that bores such utterance would dare speak to a survivor of the attacks in person.
It does take the cowardice behind the anonymity of the Internet for some commentary to see the light of day.
If you think the emotion of my argument is unfair, go and take it up with al qaeda.
“The loss from that attack wasn’t just a couple of billion dollars of real estate and a “mere” three thousand people (although, since I worked in that building and that area, I tend to take those rather personally; it’s only “liberals” who seem to be able to dismiss a few “broken eggs”.)”
I suppose the obvious question would be how much was a necessary loss by the structure of international financial transactions and how much was inspired by fear? How many of these transactions could have been rerouted, in what period of time?
In any case, you are not talking to a liberal. You are talking to a foreign policy realist. Remember those? The woolly-headed liberals are the ones who always had some vague notion of bringing democracy to the world. If you want to monopolize their starry-eyed idealism, be my guest.
“If you think the emotion of my argument is unfair, go and take it up with al qaeda.”
I don’t think the emotion of your argument is unfair, just foolish. Boo hoo hoo all you want, just don’t let it influence the logic of the situation.
“It does take the cowardice behind the anonymity of the Internet for some commentary to see the light of day.”
Whoops, my bad, I suppose I forgot to address the penis-waving call-out. If you are going to be in the Chicagoland area, please email me at shochujohn@yahoo.com, and I will be happy to set up a time and place to discuss the matter in person in the next day or so. No fisticuffs, please.
I forgot to address the penis-waving call-out. If you are going to be in the Chicagoland area, please email me at shochujohn@yahoo.com
No no! You are the one saying that the first attack on American soil since Pear Harbor was trivial.
Why don’t you come here to NYC, to the site of this video. http://tinyurl.com/4oxu55
Even you should be able to find it. I got some people who want to be enlightened by you.
It’ll be fun.
Lem,
It was and is trivial. All the emotional appeals in the world won’t change that. More people were killed in automobile accidents in the month of September 2001 alone. Statistically, your odds of getting killed by a terrorist attack are laughably tiny. It speaks to how soft we’ve become as a nation when people are still piddling their pants over that attack.
‘It speaks to how soft we’ve become as a nation when people are still piddling their pants over that attack’
Aren’t most people in this nation piddling in their pants over the weather; talk about insanity mixed with irrational emotionalism.
Obama campaigns on the idea that our coastal areas will be drowning under water if we do not control the weather! Spastic pant pisser.
As for your dreadful comments about the attack on 9/11/2001 the difference is that people choose to get in their cars and drive, we didn’t have a choice as far as Islamic Fascists attacking us.
More people were killed in automobile accidents in the month of September 2001 alone. Statistically, your odds of getting killed by a terrorist attack are laughably tiny.
There are many signs here in NY saying We will never forget. I think it may be a kind of prayer, and having this discussion makes me think that it also serves to help keep people like you at bay.
It will be sometime before the attack appears as a Jeopardy category.
I just hope I’m not around to see it.
Well, it wasn’t “just” the two buildings — it was the pentagon, and the ”let’s roll” plane headed for the hat trick, a simultaneous decapitation of the free world’s financial, military, and governmental HQs.
And it wasn’t just the one attack, it was the implied promise of a system-collapsing second and third, and so one, the “you couldn’t stop this one, how will you stop the next one?” that nothing on earth but the passage of time without a second, or ‘next’ one could weaken or ameliorate to the point that the sneer-artists could safely slither forward and hiss that the whole thing was “trivial”.
BTW, re 1968, City Journal’s current quarterly has two or three great articles, including an excellent review of a Saul Bellow work that really understood the times.
Right on, Buddy.
According to John’s view of history, Pearl Harbor was a miniscule air raid on what was in 1941, nearly foreign territory and scarcely worthy of memory.
Fewer killed then than in auto accidents?
Check.
A long time ago?
Check.
Odds very slim that anyone in the US would be killed by Jap planes?
Check.
I guess we are naifs to take Pearl Harbor seriously as something to remember after all these years as a worthy cause for military action.
I suppose the obvious question would be how much was a necessary loss by the structure of international financial transactions and how much was inspired by fear? How many of these transactions could have been rerouted, in what period of time?
It’s an interesting question, but basically a thoughtless one. First off, it was at least a trillion dollars in direct losses alone — not counting, of course, the people murdered and so on. As it happens, I was teaching a course on disaster recovery in the Sun office on the 25th floor of the south tower of the WTC just a few weeks before, so I have a fair idea how these things were and are done; the major transactions were up and running again within a week, and yes that’s still a trillion dollars. That’s the interesting part.
The thoughtless part is the notion that the losses caused by fear were somehow less real: thoughtless and at best ignorant.
You are talking to a foreign policy realist.
No, actually, I’m not. Not for any value of “reality” that makes sense.
If you want to monopolize their starry-eyed idealism, be my guest.
By the way, that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Thanks, Barrett — is it any wonder that, having trivialized something, one can then confidently pronounce it trivial? In the mind of the trivializer, of course it is.
And is there anything in heaven or earth that can’t be trivialized? Of course there isn’t. All it takes is the will to do it.
Those who object are just wrong. Heck they’d probably object too if you told them just how trivial, in the final analysis, all our lives–with their silly loved ones and silly hopes and dreams–really are. That’s why, when we get around to the final solution, we don’t ask them first if we can kill them. They’d probably object, see.
Charlie, re cost, the price/earnings ratio of the nation’s capital stock has never yet recovered the pre 9/11 level. This being the fundamental expression of the work world’s appreciation of the future, any truthful analysis of the 9/11 cost would have to include it.
Every year twice as many people are killed in auto accidents as are victims of homicide. I can’t for the life of me understand why we waste all these resources arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning murderers.
Geez, people. Quit feeding the troll.
Roger made an excellent point (as he typically does); let’s not get sidetracked any further by some egomaniacal ignoramus.
Scott
…any truthful analysis of the 9/11 cost would have to include it.
Taking a plane has never been the same. How do you put a price on the intangibles?
Thank you people for eloquently elucidating my rage.
“It speaks to how soft we’ve become as a nation when people are still piddling their pants over that attack.
Posted by: Shochu John”
Sorry to feed the troll again but maybe he would be willing to read Tony Cordesman’s analysis of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, a possibility even with that of another attack on US soil.
His conclusion ? The end of the Age of Petroleum.
I guess I keep thinking that everyone can learn but I may be wrong. The generation that supports Obama seems never to have studied history and all that dull stuff.
Good point, Gary. Murdering can’t be a real crime, because we don’t prosecute accidents. I mean, you’d think we’d at least put a cap on accidents, or tax them or something.
“Taking a plane has never been the same.”
As my brother, a former airline pilot said “It’s a good thing there wasn’t an underwear bomber”.
“Taking a plane has never been the same.”
As my brother, a former airline pilot said “It’s a good thing there wasn’t an underwear bomber”.
Anyone old enough to remember Reagan will recall the outraged NY Times editorial following Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union as an “evil Empire.” And the letters that followed. They’re no worse than we are. Unnecessary provocation. What about OUR treatment of political dissidents? The victims of 9/11 are just as dead as if an ICBM had struck New York. And the incorporation of a compact nuclear device on one of those planes might have increased the number of fatalities to an amount that some of you would apparently find more impressive. Well,take heart,there’s always next time.