Sunday, August 01, 2010

Generation Gap On What America Is

My wife and I were commenting the other day on the vast generation gap that exists concerning the impression about what America is. The older generation sees America as a force for good around the world and through-out its history. And by "America" they mean both the actual country and its government. There was an expression that was around when I was growing up, "America, Love it or Leave it". That describes the attitude pretty well. They may not trust one of the two DC-based political parties who pick our leaders, but they cheer on the other with a full-throttled enthusiasm normally reserved for sports teams. The idea that America could be in the wrong is very disturbing to them. Their default position is that America is good.

I believe that this mind-set comes not only from our struggle against fascism and communism, but also from the way people were educated in prior generations. It has been said that the state will not hesitate to use the public schools to further its political goals. The goals of the leaders of that generation were to convince the populace that the country was good and its policies benevolent. That's what the public schools taught, and that's what the population believed.

But the people who controlled the school system changed goals sometime in the 1960s. They had a different agenda. They wanted citizens with a global, rather than a national, outlook. They wanted to de-emphasize American patriotism and American religion (Christianity). They were early examples of today's globalists.

With this new goal, the schools no longer taught that America was a beacon on a hill, an unmitigated force for good to whom all the world should look for guidance. They emphasized the things America did that were wrong, that were inconsistent even with our own ideals. Was it America bashing, or just correcting a previous imbalance toward a sort of patriotism which never questioned government action? I am not writing to decide that huge question, but rather the effects of this change. It has resulted in a vast generation gap on the question of "is America good?"

The younger generation is quick to believe that America is in the wrong. So quick that I would estimate that a majority of 17-24 year olds with an opinion on the matter believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the government to incite popular support for a global military campaign. Almost no one over 50 believes that. The younger generation does not believe the government story about the JFK assassination, or almost anything else. They have been trained to be distrustful of all authorities, because they were being educated to reject the values and attitudes of their parents, their church, and their national institutions.

The globalists got much of what they wanted in reprogramming the next generation, but their plan may have some unforeseen consequences that they won't like. This campaign against traditional authorities worked, but it is now starting to boomerang back on it's creators. The globalists are now the authorities, and the younger generation does not trust them anymore than the authority figures they have been educated to mistrust. The young have been trained to believe in nothing, and so they don't even believe those who trained them! That spiritual vacuum can't last long, because the human heart is not made to live that way.

But the bottom line is that young people are turning to anti-authoritarian icons like Ron Paul, despite the desperate attempts to paint Paul as a nut. The globalists wanted to tear down traditional sources of authority to make way for themselves as the replacement. In terms of power, its working, but it's not turning out that way hearts and minds wise. A generation trained to doubt the good intentions of every authority only want to give authority to people who are anti-authoritarian.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The government has pretty much always been a terrible hydra which was healthy to hate, but I believe the older generation you speak of as loving our country was born from several world wars, and terror that the Russian monsters would nuke them.

No matter what evils were perpetrated by our government, as least we weren't "red"!

12:51 PM, August 02, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a lot of it is that young people read the internet and give more credit to its peoples various opinions and old people still only get information from state sanctioned crap like newspapers and TV news networks.

10:50 PM, August 03, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

State sanctioned crap? Under what - the Obama News Act?

THIS is state sanctioned crap:

You're welcome.

5:22 AM, August 04, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Tell me 5:22, concerning broadcast media in the United States, do they or do they not require a license from the federal government to operate?

And isn't it so that a part of whether their license is renewed is that the fedgov determines their content is in "the public interest" as defined by fedgov?

If that is not "state sanctioned" then please give your definition of the term.

5:29 PM, August 04, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell ya what, Mark, I'll play.

You raised the point in your last comment:

"And isn't it so that a part of whether their license is renewed is that the fedgov determines their content is in "the public interest" as defined by fedgov?"

Give me a primary source for the quote you just whipped up, then we'll continue.

8:17 PM, August 04, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You gotta register to get stuff from the FCC site, so I went to a cyber cemetary to get this from a no longer published gov. pub.

" As the foregoing history suggests, the fundamental legal framework that governs the broadcast industry sets it apart from other media. In broadcasting the federal government grants exclusive free speech rights to licensees, while denying such freedom to others. To justify this privileged treatment, Congress and the courts have mandated that licensees serve as "public trustees" of the airwaves.

The public trustee model has given rise to a distinct genre of First Amendment jurisprudence. Unlike newspapers and magazines, broadcasters have affirmative statutory and regulatory obligations to serve the public in specific ways. Despite the philosophical complications and political tensions that this arrangement entails, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the public trustee basis of broadcast regulation as constitutional.(4) "

5:01 PM, August 05, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

OK, found a way around it from

"As noted above, whenever we review an application – whether to build a new station, modify or renew a license or sell a station – we must determine if its grant would serve the public interest."

So are you still playing friend?

5:06 PM, August 05, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark -

First, thanks for at least knowing what a primary source is and taking the time to respond! Well done.

Second, when I think of state sanctioned programming, I think of what we see in places like North Korea, China, Nigeria, Iran, etc. I apologize for not answering your original question.

That said, directly after what you quoted from the text (last updated during the previous Administration, by the way), it says:

"As discussed earlier, we expect station licensees to be aware of the important problems and issues facing their local communities and to foster public understanding by presenting programming that relates to those local issues. As discussed in this Manual, however, broadcasters – not the FCC or any other government agency – are responsible for selecting the material that they air. By operation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and because the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast matter, our role in overseeing program content is very limited. We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations with which stations have relationships (such as PBS or NPR), except to the extent that those entities may also be station licensees. We also do not regulate information provided over the Internet, nor do we intervene in private disputes involving broadcast stations or their licensees. Instead, we usually defer to the parties, courts, or other agencies to resolve such disputes."

To repeat - broadcasters are responsible for the content they air - NOT the FCC. Also, as it states, the First Amendement prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast matter.

Bottom line - you haven't seen state sanctioned "crap likes newspapers and TV news networks."

7:49 PM, August 05, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You are welcome. I try to debate on fact and reason, not ill will.

Now on the the wars! :) The paragraph you cite does not negate what I cite. It's FCC CYA. It's like the feds don't have racial quotas, you just better hire the right number minorities. The stations select their own material, but when renewal time comes up it better fit what WE think is in the "public interest."

The state does not have to be as unsubtle as N Korea to be in the media sanctioning business.

8:25 PM, August 05, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

....btw it was not I who made that comment. I would separate newspapers from the "government sanctioned" media. THey are sorry for a whole different set of reasons.

4:23 AM, August 06, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Also, as it states, the First Amendement prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast matter."

And that's why we can't see boobies on TV.

11:06 AM, August 06, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home