Here's what gets me.
Liberals are "not narrow in opinion or judgment." Conservatives are "disposed to maintain existing views, conditions or institutions."
Liberals were curious. Conservatives were not.
Liberals climbed down from the trees and ventured onto the dangerous plains. Conservatives stayed in the forests and remained safe.
Liberals discovered how to cultivate crops for steady supplies of food. Conservatives tried to remain hunters and gatherers, which had worked in the past.
Liberals created stories and myths. Conservatives believed the myths were true.
Liberals saw the need for a set of rules so society could function. Conservatives saw rules as a way to get others to act like them.
Liberals ventured far from home to discover new worlds. Conservatives stayed home and managed their day-to-day affairs.
Liberals discovered new lands and civilizations. Conservatives followed to convert savages to Christianity.
Liberals settled the New World to begin a new life. Conservatives stayed in the Old World where they were comfortable.
Liberals had vision and dreams of what might be. Conservatives had memories and dreams of what had been.
Liberals dealt with ideas. Conservatives dealt with rules.
Liberals wanted to change society for the better. Conservatives wanted to keep the status quo at all costs.
Liberals became workers and Democrats. Conservatives became business owners and Republicans.
Liberals acquired knowledge. Conservatives acquired wealth.
Liberals went to war. Conservatives waged war.
Liberals asked questions. Conservatives gave answers.
Liberals fought for women to get the vote. Conservatives fought to keep women home, barefoot and pregnant.
Liberals made new discoveries in science and technology. Conservatives bought and sold products created from discoveries.
Liberals went to Hollywood and created the motion-picture industry. Conservatives stayed home, went to the movies and complained about Hollywood.
Liberals wrote ground-breaking erotic works of art. Conservatives banned them in Boston.
Liberals embraced the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives condemned it and created "monkey trials."
Liberals were open to other nations and cultures. Conservatives created isolationism.
Liberals encouraged sex education in schools. Conservatives forbade it.
Liberals believed in the equality of people. Conservatives created apartheid and "separate but equal" laws.
Liberals became newspaper reporters. Conservatives became newspaper publishers.
Liberals in the form of 60,000 authors, actors, painters and musicians emigrated from Germany. Conservatives stayed behind and sent over 6,000,000 people to concentration camps.
Liberals wrote books. Conservatives burned them.
Liberals developed the atomic bomb. Conservatives used it.
Liberals became beatniks. Conservatives ridiculed them.
Liberals created rock 'n' roll. Conservatives destroyed records.
Liberals became "freedom riders" and fought for civil rights. Conservatives supported the Ku Klux Klan and fought to preserve racism.
Liberals became hippies and questioned all authority and the Vietnam war. Conservatives derided hippies and supported all authority and the Vietnam war.
Liberals promoted peace and love. Conservatives promoted war and hate.
Liberals went to Woodstock for three days of fun and music. Conservatives tried to ban sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
Liberals watched "Laugh-In" and "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour." Conservatives watched "Marcus Welby, M.D." and kicked the Smothers Brothers off the air.
Liberals took to the streets and protested against the Vietnam war. Conservatives beat up the protesters and killed them at Kent State.
Liberals think young. Conservatives want everything to be like it was when they were young.
Liberals create fashion. Conservatives are slaves to fashion.
Liberals are concerned about content and form. Conservatives are afraid of content and embarrassed by form.
Liberals believe the means justify the end. Conservatives believe the end justifies the means.
Liberals believe everyone is equal. Conservatives believe they are better than others.
Liberals are open-minded about sexuality and erotica. Conservatives are close-minded and embarrassed by sexuality and erotica.
Liberals believe knowledge is power. Conservatives believe knowledge is dangerous.
Liberals are proud to be different. Conservatives are afraid to be different.
Liberals forgive. Conservatives forget.
Liberals want to create the future. Conservatives want to re-create the past.
Liberals talk about rights and wrongs. Conservatives talk about rights and lefts.
Liberals try to discover new ways to make things work. Conservatives keep trying to make old ways work.
Liberals want people to think for themselves. Conservatives want people to think the way conservatives do.
Liberals mourn the loss of an idea. Conservatives mourn the loss of a privilege.
Liberals trust in people. Conservatives trust in God.
Liberals are brave, self-confident and willing to take chances. Conservatives are cowardly, insecure and afraid to take chances.
Liberals would rather change than die. Conservatives would rather die than change.
That's the history of humanity.
I rest my case.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The Dumbing of Society
Here's what gets me.
I believe that as a society we are becoming dumber, I believe we are either ignoring or disguising this fact so we can be proud of ourselves and I believe ultimately this is going to be bad for us.
First of all, you need to decide for yourself whether, forced to make a choice, you would choose to do what is best for humanity or what is best for yourself.
Of course, the optimal choice is something that is best for both humanity and yourself, but we don't always get such choices, and I believe if we tip the balance too often for our personal gain, we end up making society dumber.
In nature, some still subscribe to Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Those species and members of species who can best adapt to the environment survive and reproduce, those least fitted do not. Therefore, the best, the brightest, the fastest, the strongest and the smartest survive. The poorer, dimmer, slower, weaker and dumber lose.
It doesn't take an Einstein or a college graduate to figure out that in the game of Life there are more losers than winners. In most sporting competitions, which obviously model the game of Life, there are more losers than winners, except of course, when there are only two competitors, such as in boxing matches and tennis games.
Even so, we still seem to be fascinated with the idea of only one winner, and so we create the "world champion" and "the Number 1 seed" for competitions between two combatants.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a college graduate to figure out that in the bell curve of intelligence, if an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 100 represents "average," the top of the curve, there are many more people of average intelligence than of genius intelligence. And in a democracy, in which the slogan is "majority rules," by nature we are probably allowing ourselves to be ruled by people of average intelligence.
Perhaps the majority of the people--by nature, those with average intelligence--"wised up," and that is why we don't hear much about "IQ" anymore. Perhaps the Embarrassing Sixties, brought on by the enormous glut of maturing Baby Boomers, is the cause.
In the Olden Days of the Frigid Fifties, grades were awarded fairly and systematically according to the bell curve of A, B, C, D and F. Fifty percent of the students got a C, 20% got a D, another 20% a B, 5% an F and another 5% an A. There were clear winners, losers and also-rans.
However, the angry Baby Boomers who thought Life was unfair and took over administration buildings with sit-ins, be-ins and what's happenings wanted to shorten the odds on becoming "winners." In many cases they got the Administration to change the grading system to one of "Pass-Fail." No more first, second, third, fourth and fifth places. You either won or lost. You were either on the bus or off the bus.
Now, clearly the onslaught of computer technology with its binary numbering system has some connection, but we no longer seem to care for anything more than winners and losers. Remember when Avis was proud of being Number 2? No more. We even extended competitions in order to prevent ties in sporting events.
Except for the Olympics, nobody remembers who came in second. It is no longer honorable to be anything other than a winner. "We're Number 1!" And if the team I support is Number 1, that makes me Number 1, too!
However, if everybody wins, then nobody loses. And if nobody loses, then nobody wins.
Why did we make jokes about not being able to program a VCR? Because the majority of us are actually losers.
Remember when we used to say "May the best man win" even in two-people competitions? Don't dare say that around feminists.
It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar or a college graduate to figure out that everybody would like to be a winner, but not everybody can. Once everybody is equal in terms of speed, strength and dexterity, all races end in ties.
Therefore, we need to compromise. In order to allow the human race to end in a tie with as many people as possible becoming winners, we need to cooperate with one another. When we help each other, we help ourselves and eventually everyone.
The only way we can all be winners is to revere the few Einsteins, rocket scientists, Rhodes scholars and college graduates for their victories.
I rest my case.
I believe that as a society we are becoming dumber, I believe we are either ignoring or disguising this fact so we can be proud of ourselves and I believe ultimately this is going to be bad for us.
First of all, you need to decide for yourself whether, forced to make a choice, you would choose to do what is best for humanity or what is best for yourself.
Of course, the optimal choice is something that is best for both humanity and yourself, but we don't always get such choices, and I believe if we tip the balance too often for our personal gain, we end up making society dumber.
In nature, some still subscribe to Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Those species and members of species who can best adapt to the environment survive and reproduce, those least fitted do not. Therefore, the best, the brightest, the fastest, the strongest and the smartest survive. The poorer, dimmer, slower, weaker and dumber lose.
It doesn't take an Einstein or a college graduate to figure out that in the game of Life there are more losers than winners. In most sporting competitions, which obviously model the game of Life, there are more losers than winners, except of course, when there are only two competitors, such as in boxing matches and tennis games.
Even so, we still seem to be fascinated with the idea of only one winner, and so we create the "world champion" and "the Number 1 seed" for competitions between two combatants.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a college graduate to figure out that in the bell curve of intelligence, if an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 100 represents "average," the top of the curve, there are many more people of average intelligence than of genius intelligence. And in a democracy, in which the slogan is "majority rules," by nature we are probably allowing ourselves to be ruled by people of average intelligence.
Perhaps the majority of the people--by nature, those with average intelligence--"wised up," and that is why we don't hear much about "IQ" anymore. Perhaps the Embarrassing Sixties, brought on by the enormous glut of maturing Baby Boomers, is the cause.
In the Olden Days of the Frigid Fifties, grades were awarded fairly and systematically according to the bell curve of A, B, C, D and F. Fifty percent of the students got a C, 20% got a D, another 20% a B, 5% an F and another 5% an A. There were clear winners, losers and also-rans.
However, the angry Baby Boomers who thought Life was unfair and took over administration buildings with sit-ins, be-ins and what's happenings wanted to shorten the odds on becoming "winners." In many cases they got the Administration to change the grading system to one of "Pass-Fail." No more first, second, third, fourth and fifth places. You either won or lost. You were either on the bus or off the bus.
Now, clearly the onslaught of computer technology with its binary numbering system has some connection, but we no longer seem to care for anything more than winners and losers. Remember when Avis was proud of being Number 2? No more. We even extended competitions in order to prevent ties in sporting events.
Except for the Olympics, nobody remembers who came in second. It is no longer honorable to be anything other than a winner. "We're Number 1!" And if the team I support is Number 1, that makes me Number 1, too!
However, if everybody wins, then nobody loses. And if nobody loses, then nobody wins.
Why did we make jokes about not being able to program a VCR? Because the majority of us are actually losers.
Remember when we used to say "May the best man win" even in two-people competitions? Don't dare say that around feminists.
It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar or a college graduate to figure out that everybody would like to be a winner, but not everybody can. Once everybody is equal in terms of speed, strength and dexterity, all races end in ties.
Therefore, we need to compromise. In order to allow the human race to end in a tie with as many people as possible becoming winners, we need to cooperate with one another. When we help each other, we help ourselves and eventually everyone.
The only way we can all be winners is to revere the few Einsteins, rocket scientists, Rhodes scholars and college graduates for their victories.
I rest my case.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Creatures Great and Small
Here's what gets me.
I live in Boulder, Colorado, sometimes derisively referred to as "the People's Republic of Boulder" and sometimes scornfully called "25 square miles of fantasy surrounded by reality," usually by people who live in nearby communities and are jealous of the residents who live in the city with one of the highest educated populations per capita in the country and one of the counties that continually votes Democratic in a Republican state.
Well, in the spirit of Chevy Chase on the first "Weekend Update" segments of "Saturday Night Live," I say to all those people, "I live here and you don't."
I say this with all due sympathy and respect, especially in light of all the constant hullabaloo (There's a word you don't see much of since the Sixties.) in Boulder civic circles about the town's needing more "affordable housing," because it is too expensive to live here for the people who work in the service industry, people like waitpersons and salesclerks and ticket takers and janitors.
(Question: Why is it quote: "politically incorrect" unquote: to call someone a "waiter" or a "waitress" and thus we use the artificially created word of "waitperson," but not quote: unquote: politically incorrect to call someone a "janitor," and so no one has created the artificial word of "janitperson" to refer to custodians of both sexes?)
Consequently, these so-called menial workers of undeterminable sex must live in nearby towns where jealousy is high and rents and costs of houses are lower, and they have to commute to Boulder to their jobs. Guess what the second most-pressing problem is in Boulder where the top problem is "affordable housing."
Right. Prairie dogs.
"What?" you say? "Prairie dogs?" you say? "How can burrowing rodents be a problem in a city?" you say?
Okay, okay! Not so much in the quote: unquote: "city" as in the surrounding open-space areas owned by Boulder County, which is an even nicer place to live than the City of Boulder, because you can still vote Democrat and be proud of it, you can still bask in the glow of pride of being associated with one of the unique and most desirable places to live in the country (all puns intended) and you don't have to put up with those clowns in City Hall.
You do, however (and by "you," I mean "me"), have to put up with those wildly clothed and gawkishly made-up jesters in County Hall.
(I kid the clowns in County Hall. I don't even know if they dress in gaudy clothing. I don't even know if there is such a thing as a "County Hall." I do, however, believe that some of them actually wear makeup, meaning those of the non-undetermined-sex types who are not ashamed to be known by words that identify them as being a member of the female sex, such as "county commissioner.")
(Hmmm, why is that not "county commissionperson," because sometimes there are two men and one woman serving in that office.)
Now, the reason for this mild outburst on my part is a local newspaper item I read once that began, "Boulder county open space managers are working against prairie dogs' instincts."
The story wasn't about how managepersons are trying to get the prairie dogs to stop building homes by digging burrows or to prevent them from having sex with other prairie dogs--. No! Wait! I take that back! It was about how they are trying to do that, but can't!
In other words, I guess you can quote: unquote: "fight County Hall."
You see, the people of Boulder are very environmentally conscious (no pun intended), and they manage to get laws passed that don't allow greedy land developers to build big old ugly houses on land where the prairie dogs have been living happily and peacefully for centuries (except for the occasional marauding eagle, hawk or coyote, of course), unless they arrange for the prairie dogs and their innocent prairie pups to be uprooted (pun intended) from their Burrow Sweet Burrows first and transplanted to another prairie dogless and burrowless open-space area.
However, those rascally prairie dogs aren't staying put, so to speak. They keep having sex and building new burrows on adjoining land where they aren't wanted.
So, here is an idea to solve all "affordable housing," "traffic" and "prairie dog instinct" problems: Train the prairie dogs to wait tables, sell merchandise, take tickets and be janitdogs.
They even come with their own affordable housing.
I rest my case.
I live in Boulder, Colorado, sometimes derisively referred to as "the People's Republic of Boulder" and sometimes scornfully called "25 square miles of fantasy surrounded by reality," usually by people who live in nearby communities and are jealous of the residents who live in the city with one of the highest educated populations per capita in the country and one of the counties that continually votes Democratic in a Republican state.
Well, in the spirit of Chevy Chase on the first "Weekend Update" segments of "Saturday Night Live," I say to all those people, "I live here and you don't."
I say this with all due sympathy and respect, especially in light of all the constant hullabaloo (There's a word you don't see much of since the Sixties.) in Boulder civic circles about the town's needing more "affordable housing," because it is too expensive to live here for the people who work in the service industry, people like waitpersons and salesclerks and ticket takers and janitors.
(Question: Why is it quote: "politically incorrect" unquote: to call someone a "waiter" or a "waitress" and thus we use the artificially created word of "waitperson," but not quote: unquote: politically incorrect to call someone a "janitor," and so no one has created the artificial word of "janitperson" to refer to custodians of both sexes?)
Consequently, these so-called menial workers of undeterminable sex must live in nearby towns where jealousy is high and rents and costs of houses are lower, and they have to commute to Boulder to their jobs. Guess what the second most-pressing problem is in Boulder where the top problem is "affordable housing."
Right. Prairie dogs.
"What?" you say? "Prairie dogs?" you say? "How can burrowing rodents be a problem in a city?" you say?
Okay, okay! Not so much in the quote: unquote: "city" as in the surrounding open-space areas owned by Boulder County, which is an even nicer place to live than the City of Boulder, because you can still vote Democrat and be proud of it, you can still bask in the glow of pride of being associated with one of the unique and most desirable places to live in the country (all puns intended) and you don't have to put up with those clowns in City Hall.
You do, however (and by "you," I mean "me"), have to put up with those wildly clothed and gawkishly made-up jesters in County Hall.
(I kid the clowns in County Hall. I don't even know if they dress in gaudy clothing. I don't even know if there is such a thing as a "County Hall." I do, however, believe that some of them actually wear makeup, meaning those of the non-undetermined-sex types who are not ashamed to be known by words that identify them as being a member of the female sex, such as "county commissioner.")
(Hmmm, why is that not "county commissionperson," because sometimes there are two men and one woman serving in that office.)
Now, the reason for this mild outburst on my part is a local newspaper item I read once that began, "Boulder county open space managers are working against prairie dogs' instincts."
The story wasn't about how managepersons are trying to get the prairie dogs to stop building homes by digging burrows or to prevent them from having sex with other prairie dogs--. No! Wait! I take that back! It was about how they are trying to do that, but can't!
In other words, I guess you can quote: unquote: "fight County Hall."
You see, the people of Boulder are very environmentally conscious (no pun intended), and they manage to get laws passed that don't allow greedy land developers to build big old ugly houses on land where the prairie dogs have been living happily and peacefully for centuries (except for the occasional marauding eagle, hawk or coyote, of course), unless they arrange for the prairie dogs and their innocent prairie pups to be uprooted (pun intended) from their Burrow Sweet Burrows first and transplanted to another prairie dogless and burrowless open-space area.
However, those rascally prairie dogs aren't staying put, so to speak. They keep having sex and building new burrows on adjoining land where they aren't wanted.
So, here is an idea to solve all "affordable housing," "traffic" and "prairie dog instinct" problems: Train the prairie dogs to wait tables, sell merchandise, take tickets and be janitdogs.
They even come with their own affordable housing.
I rest my case.
Monday, August 22, 2011
15 Minutes or More of Fame
Here's what gets me.
Back in 1968, Andy Warhol wrote in the catalogue for a photography exhibition of his in Stockholm, Sweden, "In the future everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes."
What he didn't add, however, is that everyone would want to be world-famous.
How about you? Would you like to be world-famous? Now, think long and hard before you answer. I'll wait....
Are you ready with your answer? Did you consider all the ramifications of just what "famous" means? According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
famous: 1: widely known 2: honored for achievement 3: excellent, first-rate syn renowned, celebrated, noted, notorious, distinguished, eminent, illustrious
Now, think of some world-famous people and consider if you would really want to live like them.
Movie stars? Unless you have the looks of Julia Roberts or the talent of Robert De Niro, you aren't going to be making $20 million a movie, but you will have to work really hard for long, demanding hours and you will still be pestered in public restrooms for your autograph and you still won't be able to go shopping by yourself.
And speaking of De Niro, he once starred in a movie that really was called 15 minutes, which is about this very topic, and he dies.
Oops! Sorry, if you haven't seen the movie. Disregard that last sentence. Maybe he doesn't die. Maybe he only pretends to be dead, but he has to fight a couple of bad guys while tied to a chair, and he has to drive really fast through Manhattan and run as hard as he can through the streets of New York City, and we all know how dangerous that can be.
So, my point is, if you don't have looks or talent, being world-famous as a movie star is going to get you diddly-squat.
Politicians? What, are you crazy? Why would anyone want to be world-famous as the leader of a country? Those guys and some gals work excruciatingly long hours, they are watched every minute by someone and some of them are even killed by their enemies!
Oh, sure, obviously some minutes, President Clinton wasn't watched, but is being constantly watched and hounded by the press now as a private citizen really worth a few moments of under-the-desk sexual pleasure that wasn't really sex?
Oh, sure, President Bush was world-famous once, but would you really want to be "under the gun" (so to speak) so that every little thing you said was made fun of the following weekend on "Saturday Night Live"? Would you really want to have numerous Internet Websites devoted to just the stupid things you said and the dumb-looking, chimp-like facial expressions you made? Would you really want every aspect of your wild youth and drug-history past investigated and brought out into the open so that you have to admit all accusations by refusing to comment on them?
(Note to audience: You don't have to wait for the answers to these questions.)
Now, the reason I bring up this subject of 15 minutes of being world-famous is a story in the newspaper I read about nine local residents having the opportunity in what was called "a truly avant-garde auction" one year at the Lakewood Country Club near Denver to have "some sudden name fame."
As part of the Jefferson County Library Foundation's "Rare & Novel Night," an annual auction that sells old books, seven authors, including Clive Cussler and Tony Hillerman, had agreed to include nine winning bidders' names in their forthcoming novels. (Hillerman agreed to put three local names in his next book, which accounts for the numerical discrepancy, but which also waters down the "fame" thing, don't you agree?)
What, are these people crazy? Sure, it is all for a good cause in that all proceeds will help the foundation pay for a "traveling library center" (sounds suspiciously like a "bookmobile," don't you think?), but pay to get your name in print? Five lucky "winners" names are hidden every month in my trash-bill literature. Spot your name and get a discount on your next month's bill.
So, here is what I am proposing if you want a piece of that 15-minute world-famous action: Add a comment here on this Website and then wait for others to comment on your comment if it's clever, and you can forever crow about having had your name in print.
For free! Without being pestered in public restrooms. Without having to work long hours or put up with public humiliation.
I rest my case.
Back in 1968, Andy Warhol wrote in the catalogue for a photography exhibition of his in Stockholm, Sweden, "In the future everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes."
What he didn't add, however, is that everyone would want to be world-famous.
How about you? Would you like to be world-famous? Now, think long and hard before you answer. I'll wait....
Are you ready with your answer? Did you consider all the ramifications of just what "famous" means? According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
famous: 1: widely known 2: honored for achievement 3: excellent, first-rate syn renowned, celebrated, noted, notorious, distinguished, eminent, illustrious
Now, think of some world-famous people and consider if you would really want to live like them.
Movie stars? Unless you have the looks of Julia Roberts or the talent of Robert De Niro, you aren't going to be making $20 million a movie, but you will have to work really hard for long, demanding hours and you will still be pestered in public restrooms for your autograph and you still won't be able to go shopping by yourself.
And speaking of De Niro, he once starred in a movie that really was called 15 minutes, which is about this very topic, and he dies.
Oops! Sorry, if you haven't seen the movie. Disregard that last sentence. Maybe he doesn't die. Maybe he only pretends to be dead, but he has to fight a couple of bad guys while tied to a chair, and he has to drive really fast through Manhattan and run as hard as he can through the streets of New York City, and we all know how dangerous that can be.
So, my point is, if you don't have looks or talent, being world-famous as a movie star is going to get you diddly-squat.
Politicians? What, are you crazy? Why would anyone want to be world-famous as the leader of a country? Those guys and some gals work excruciatingly long hours, they are watched every minute by someone and some of them are even killed by their enemies!
Oh, sure, obviously some minutes, President Clinton wasn't watched, but is being constantly watched and hounded by the press now as a private citizen really worth a few moments of under-the-desk sexual pleasure that wasn't really sex?
Oh, sure, President Bush was world-famous once, but would you really want to be "under the gun" (so to speak) so that every little thing you said was made fun of the following weekend on "Saturday Night Live"? Would you really want to have numerous Internet Websites devoted to just the stupid things you said and the dumb-looking, chimp-like facial expressions you made? Would you really want every aspect of your wild youth and drug-history past investigated and brought out into the open so that you have to admit all accusations by refusing to comment on them?
(Note to audience: You don't have to wait for the answers to these questions.)
Now, the reason I bring up this subject of 15 minutes of being world-famous is a story in the newspaper I read about nine local residents having the opportunity in what was called "a truly avant-garde auction" one year at the Lakewood Country Club near Denver to have "some sudden name fame."
As part of the Jefferson County Library Foundation's "Rare & Novel Night," an annual auction that sells old books, seven authors, including Clive Cussler and Tony Hillerman, had agreed to include nine winning bidders' names in their forthcoming novels. (Hillerman agreed to put three local names in his next book, which accounts for the numerical discrepancy, but which also waters down the "fame" thing, don't you agree?)
What, are these people crazy? Sure, it is all for a good cause in that all proceeds will help the foundation pay for a "traveling library center" (sounds suspiciously like a "bookmobile," don't you think?), but pay to get your name in print? Five lucky "winners" names are hidden every month in my trash-bill literature. Spot your name and get a discount on your next month's bill.
So, here is what I am proposing if you want a piece of that 15-minute world-famous action: Add a comment here on this Website and then wait for others to comment on your comment if it's clever, and you can forever crow about having had your name in print.
For free! Without being pestered in public restrooms. Without having to work long hours or put up with public humiliation.
I rest my case.
Friday, August 05, 2011
The Dying of the Yuppie
Here's what gets me.
We seem to have an unhealthy concern for names, labels and statistics (or, as David Letterman says they say in Indiana: "sa-tis-tics").
For example, a poll was conducted in 1991 that concluded the Age of the Yuppie was dying and people were more interested in good health and a happy marriage than they used to be.
The poll was actually a telephone survey of 600 adults conducted for the Lifetime cable show "The Great American TV Poll" with these results:
* Forty percent (that is, 240 people) said that faith in God was what they valued most.
* Twenty-nine percent (174 people) said "a happy marriage."
* Five percent (30 people) said a job they enjoy.
* Two percent (12 people) said the money they make.
* Two percent (12 more people) said respect for people in the community.
* One percent (6 people) said none of the mentioned values was most important to them.
Now, the results of this poll were reported in a newspaper article with the headline "Poll finds that the Age of the Yuppie is dying."
Wait a minute! Who said anything about "Yuppies"? How did the newspaper reporter (or, more likely, the headline writer) conclude the "age of the Yuppie" was dying from the fact that 240 people out of 600 said that faith in God was what they valued most down to 12 people who said that none of the mentioned values was most important to them?
Another cheap joke at the expense of the much-maligned "Young Upwardly Mobile Professionals" (read "successful Baby Boomers"--"Subbies," maybe?)?
We don't even know what values were mentioned in the poll. We don't even know that those 600 anonymous people were Yuppies. We don't know what a true Yuppie is, and we don't even know that the poll was designed to tell us anything about Yuppies.
All we know is that a poll was conducted by telephone involving 600 adults, they responded to a list of suggested values as to which was most important to them and the newspaper article took a cheap shot at so-called Yuppies, probably because only two percent responded that the money they make was most important.
However, that was then and this is now, as some people like to say when they need a transition. And there happens to be some evidence that the term "Yuppie" is dying, if not the "age" itself.
For example, The Denver Post once reported that the acronym had "gone the way of the yellow tie," saying that it first appeared in 1984 at the height of the Reagan era and "stuck as a symbol for conspicuous consumption."
I disagree. I believe it stuck as a symbol for a subset of the Baby Boomer generation to get blamed for all the excesses that the Reagan era brought us, as well as a one-word, recognizable term that could be used as a cheap shot to get a knee-jerk reaction, just like "hippie" and "peacenik" were used in the years before Reagan.
At any rate, the Post reported that in 1986 the term appeared in 386 articles in The New York Times, but in 1992, "just 199." Just 199? That's more than half, or 51.5544 percent, to be exact and excessive.
The space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, U.S. warplanes attacked and bombed Libya in 1986 and Ivan Boesky (hardly a Yuppie and definitely not a Baby Boomer) pleaded guilty in 1986 to an unspecified criminal count, paid a $100 million fine, returned his profits from illegal trading and was banned for life from trading seciurities. What do you want to bet that the appearance of "Challenger," "Muammar al-Qadaffy" and "Ivan Boesky" dropped off 51.5544 percent in New York Times articles from 1986 to 1991?
In fact, if it weren't for the success of Yuppies and the jealousy of both non-Yuppie Baby Boomers (Nubbies?) and non-Baby Boomers (Nobbies?), the term would never have caught on in the first place.
However, just like "Cleveland," "geezer" and "the New York Mets," use of the term can bring an instant, knee-jerk reaction in your audience and a smug, self-satisfied expression of "Boy, am I glad I'm not one of them!"
And the sooner we stop using names, labels and statistics to do our thinking for us, the sooner we will start showing respect for the people we are talking and thinking about.
Assuming they deserve it, of course.
I rest my case.
We seem to have an unhealthy concern for names, labels and statistics (or, as David Letterman says they say in Indiana: "sa-tis-tics").
For example, a poll was conducted in 1991 that concluded the Age of the Yuppie was dying and people were more interested in good health and a happy marriage than they used to be.
The poll was actually a telephone survey of 600 adults conducted for the Lifetime cable show "The Great American TV Poll" with these results:
* Forty percent (that is, 240 people) said that faith in God was what they valued most.
* Twenty-nine percent (174 people) said "a happy marriage."
* Five percent (30 people) said a job they enjoy.
* Two percent (12 people) said the money they make.
* Two percent (12 more people) said respect for people in the community.
* One percent (6 people) said none of the mentioned values was most important to them.
Now, the results of this poll were reported in a newspaper article with the headline "Poll finds that the Age of the Yuppie is dying."
Wait a minute! Who said anything about "Yuppies"? How did the newspaper reporter (or, more likely, the headline writer) conclude the "age of the Yuppie" was dying from the fact that 240 people out of 600 said that faith in God was what they valued most down to 12 people who said that none of the mentioned values was most important to them?
Another cheap joke at the expense of the much-maligned "Young Upwardly Mobile Professionals" (read "successful Baby Boomers"--"Subbies," maybe?)?
We don't even know what values were mentioned in the poll. We don't even know that those 600 anonymous people were Yuppies. We don't know what a true Yuppie is, and we don't even know that the poll was designed to tell us anything about Yuppies.
All we know is that a poll was conducted by telephone involving 600 adults, they responded to a list of suggested values as to which was most important to them and the newspaper article took a cheap shot at so-called Yuppies, probably because only two percent responded that the money they make was most important.
However, that was then and this is now, as some people like to say when they need a transition. And there happens to be some evidence that the term "Yuppie" is dying, if not the "age" itself.
For example, The Denver Post once reported that the acronym had "gone the way of the yellow tie," saying that it first appeared in 1984 at the height of the Reagan era and "stuck as a symbol for conspicuous consumption."
I disagree. I believe it stuck as a symbol for a subset of the Baby Boomer generation to get blamed for all the excesses that the Reagan era brought us, as well as a one-word, recognizable term that could be used as a cheap shot to get a knee-jerk reaction, just like "hippie" and "peacenik" were used in the years before Reagan.
At any rate, the Post reported that in 1986 the term appeared in 386 articles in The New York Times, but in 1992, "just 199." Just 199? That's more than half, or 51.5544 percent, to be exact and excessive.
The space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, U.S. warplanes attacked and bombed Libya in 1986 and Ivan Boesky (hardly a Yuppie and definitely not a Baby Boomer) pleaded guilty in 1986 to an unspecified criminal count, paid a $100 million fine, returned his profits from illegal trading and was banned for life from trading seciurities. What do you want to bet that the appearance of "Challenger," "Muammar al-Qadaffy" and "Ivan Boesky" dropped off 51.5544 percent in New York Times articles from 1986 to 1991?
In fact, if it weren't for the success of Yuppies and the jealousy of both non-Yuppie Baby Boomers (Nubbies?) and non-Baby Boomers (Nobbies?), the term would never have caught on in the first place.
However, just like "Cleveland," "geezer" and "the New York Mets," use of the term can bring an instant, knee-jerk reaction in your audience and a smug, self-satisfied expression of "Boy, am I glad I'm not one of them!"
And the sooner we stop using names, labels and statistics to do our thinking for us, the sooner we will start showing respect for the people we are talking and thinking about.
Assuming they deserve it, of course.
I rest my case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
