We should be used to living on the edge but we aren't.

[Gramps]

That edge I'm talking about is self destruction. We've been tip-toeing that line for nearly a century and no matter how much I try to understand why we're still tip-toeing and haven't fallen into a world-wide conflict I am puzzled for an answer.

I try to suppose the United Nations has been a factor but it never did measure up to expectations from it's beginning so I really doubt it made a lot of difference,

The one factor that I really believe might've weighed heavy when war threatened was nuclear armaments. Perhaps that is the plus about them that gets conveniently overlooked. There is no question whether there have been instances which were so touchy that they might have triggered a shooting war but either common sense or the outright fear of a nuclear conflict tempered tempers. And considering human's inability to use common sense is limited I have to go with nuclear energy as the cushion that saved us from outselves.

Today, however, just a glimpse of the utter chaos flaring in so many spots brings me back to fretting a tad over some sector mushrooming into a catastrophic collision that once started might take precedent over what could happen if one side even fires a single nuclear warhead. I, for one, am not so naive as to think that nuclear weapons are necessarily reserved for the big powers. I believe that some of the sinister warlords around the world probably have at least some nuclear weapons and the mindset to use them.

We are presently a'top a powder keg worse than any I can recall in recent history. Just wondering if any of you have similar thoughts.

gramps

 

[Queen Titania]

That edge I'm talking about is self destruction. We've been tip-toeing that line for nearly a century and no matter how much I try to understand why we're still tip-toeing and haven't fallen into a world-wide conflict I am puzzled for an answer.

I try to suppose the United Nations has been a factor but it never did measure up to expectations from it's beginning so I really doubt it made a lot of difference,

The one factor that I really believe might've weighed heavy when war threatened was nuclear armaments. Perhaps that is the plus about them that gets conveniently overlooked. There is no question whether there have been instances which were so touchy that they might have triggered a shooting war but either common sense or the outright fear of a nuclear conflict tempered tempers. And considering human's inability to use common sense is limited I have to go with nuclear energy as the cushion that saved us from outselves.

Today, however, just a glimpse of the utter chaos flaring in so many spots brings me back to fretting a tad over some sector mushrooming into a catastrophic collision that once started might take precedent over what could happen if one side even fires a single nuclear warhead. I, for one, am not so naive as to think that nuclear weapons are necessarily reserved for the big powers. I believe that some of the sinister warlords around the world probably have at least some nuclear weapons and the mindset to use them.

We are presently a'top a powder keg worse than any I can recall in recent history. Just wondering if any of you have similar thoughts.

gramps

Nope - I used to but I no longer believe there are such things as Nukes - I think it was just propaganda - fear mongering - Mushrooms can be trick photography and looking at the photos of Japan after so called A bombs - they look not unlike those of all the fire bombed cities - But if there are Nukes - what will we know about it Gramps? Nothing - don't worry about things you can do nothing about.

 

[Drumcollie]

That edge I'm talking about is self destruction. We've been tip-toeing that line for nearly a century and no matter how much I try to understand why we're still tip-toeing and haven't fallen into a world-wide conflict I am puzzled for an answer.

I try to suppose the United Nations has been a factor but it never did measure up to expectations from it's beginning so I really doubt it made a lot of difference,

The one factor that I really believe might've weighed heavy when war threatened was nuclear armaments. Perhaps that is the plus about them that gets conveniently overlooked. There is no question whether there have been instances which were so touchy that they might have triggered a shooting war but either common sense or the outright fear of a nuclear conflict tempered tempers. And considering human's inability to use common sense is limited I have to go with nuclear energy as the cushion that saved us from outselves.

Today, however, just a glimpse of the utter chaos flaring in so many spots brings me back to fretting a tad over some sector mushrooming into a catastrophic collision that once started might take precedent over what could happen if one side even fires a single nuclear warhead. I, for one, am not so naive as to think that nuclear weapons are necessarily reserved for the big powers. I believe that some of the sinister warlords around the world probably have at least some nuclear weapons and the mindset to use them.

We are presently a'top a powder keg worse than any I can recall in recent history. Just wondering if any of you have similar thoughts.

gramps

We are used to "Living on The Edge" to quote the Aerosmith song....every time a democratic is in office.

 

[Queen Titania]

We are used to "Living on The Edge" to quote the Aerosmith song....every time a democratic is in office.

Lol I say that every time any one is in office.

'It makes no difference who you vote for the Government always get in'

 

[connieb]

That edge I'm talking about is self destruction. We've been tip-toeing that line for nearly a century and no matter how much I try to understand why we're still tip-toeing and haven't fallen into a world-wide conflict I am puzzled for an answer.

I try to suppose the United Nations has been a factor but it never did measure up to expectations from it's beginning so I really doubt it made a lot of difference,

The one factor that I really believe might've weighed heavy when war threatened was nuclear armaments. Perhaps that is the plus about them that gets conveniently overlooked. There is no question whether there have been instances which were so touchy that they might have triggered a shooting war but either common sense or the outright fear of a nuclear conflict tempered tempers. And considering human's inability to use common sense is limited I have to go with nuclear energy as the cushion that saved us from outselves.

Today, however, just a glimpse of the utter chaos flaring in so many spots brings me back to fretting a tad over some sector mushrooming into a catastrophic collision that once started might take precedent over what could happen if one side even fires a single nuclear warhead. I, for one, am not so naive as to think that nuclear weapons are necessarily reserved for the big powers. I believe that some of the sinister warlords around the world probably have at least some nuclear weapons and the mindset to use them.

We are presently a'top a powder keg worse than any I can recall in recent history. Just wondering if any of you have similar thoughts.

gramps

I think to some degree Gramps we aren't more or less on the edge than any other time. I think the difference today is that we have multiple media sources running 24/7 coverage of the "news". They gotta fill airtime and instead of reporting they are whipping up emotions and fear mongering to get/keep veiwership. It is like watching the weather channel when they are gearing up for hurricane coverage. Except the other media outlets have to stir up their own hurricane. When your news from Europe can days or weeks after whatever happened, happened, it was much easier to just ignore whatever was going on over there or in some other corner of the world.

It kind of reminds me of the movie Men in Black, where Tommy Lee Jones is training Will Smith and he says something like, if people new every day how many threats to the earth we averted, or how many times there was a alien spaceship threatening to use their deathray, people would never be able to go about their happy little lives.

I think the worst part of the 24/7 news cycle is that - in many ways it prevents people from goign on with their happy little lives. I think for instance, that we largely talked ourselves into the last recession, mostly becasue for months all you heard was - when will the bubble burst.. well what does that lead peopel to do - to worry, to not spend money, to not invest... and what causes a downturn? When people are worried, and don't want to spend money or invest. In some ways..maybe we have too much information that we are constantly bombarded with these risks to our happy little lives... on the other hand.. I think even with all the info we have, we don't often get the truth from any of it.

connie

 

[Guthrie]

I think to some degree Gramps we aren't more or less on the edge than any other time. I think the difference today is that we have multiple media sources running 24/7 coverage of the "news". They gotta fill airtime and instead of reporting they are whipping up emotions and fear mongering to get/keep veiwership. It is like watching the weather channel when they are gearing up for hurricane coverage. Except the other media outlets have to stir up their own hurricane. When your news from Europe can days or weeks after whatever happened, happened, it was much easier to just ignore whatever was going on over there or in some other corner of the world.

It kind of reminds me of the movie Men in Black, where Tommy Lee Jones is training Will Smith and he says something like, if people new every day how many threats to the earth we averted, or how many times there was a alien spaceship threatening to use their deathray, people would never be able to go about their happy little lives.

I think the worst part of the 24/7 news cycle is that - in many ways it prevents people from goign on with their happy little lives. I think for instance, that we largely talked ourselves into the last recession, mostly becasue for months all you heard was - when will the bubble burst.. well what does that lead peopel to do - to worry, to not spend money, to not invest... and what causes a downturn? When people are worried, and don't want to spend money or invest. In some ways..maybe we have too much information that we are constantly bombarded with these risks to our happy little lives... on the other hand.. I think even with all the info we have, we don't often get the truth from any of it.

connie

Talked ourselves into the great recession? Hah what a comical joke. Or Clinton overturned a half-century old act designed to prevent the type of speculation and gambling that lead to it for his cronies on Wall st.

The US is by far the safest country on Earth. it is militarized up its ass in an unprecedented fashion in world history. It has hundreds of bases around the world and has a virtual monopoly on military force.

But yes, the media keep us afraid because the governments prefers our fear to give consent to polcies that harm us, help the rich, their true electorate, and threaten the security of the world.

The US, as the view of world opinion has shown, is the greatest danger to world peace. There are plenty of scumbags out there, dont get me wrong. But far and away, we are deliberately embarked on a path of imperialist that has blowbacks for the population, but not elite who run our society.

Two times the world was within one command of nuclear war. Both times a Soviet commander overturned a commanding officer and refused to fire.

 

[Alinvegas]

Nope - I used to but I no longer believe there are such things as Nukes - I think it was just propaganda - fear mongering - Mushrooms can be trick photography and looking at the photos of Japan after so called A bombs - they look not unlike those of all the fire bombed cities - But if there are Nukes - what will we know about it Gramps? Nothing - don't worry about things you can do nothing about.

Uh. the one's I saw go off in the 50's/60's weren't trick photography.

 

[Queen Titania]

Uh. the one's I saw go off in the 50's/60's weren't trick photography.

Really? - do tell.

 

[Guthrie]

Really? - do tell.

The nuclear weapons aren't fake. Thats like saying the holocaust is fake. Waste of time to discuss.

 

[Queen Titania]

The nuclear weapons aren't fake. Thats like saying the holocaust is fake. Waste of time to discuss.

You don't know me - There were no gas chambers -

I am not 100% over Nukes but it's a thought - funny one too if they are not true.

 

[fairsheet]

I think to some degree Gramps we aren't more or less on the edge than any other time. I think the difference today is that we have multiple media sources running 24/7 coverage of the "news". They gotta fill airtime and instead of reporting they are whipping up emotions and fear mongering to get/keep veiwership. It is like watching the weather channel when they are gearing up for hurricane coverage. Except the other media outlets have to stir up their own hurricane. When your news from Europe can days or weeks after whatever happened, happened, it was much easier to just ignore whatever was going on over there or in some other corner of the world.

It kind of reminds me of the movie Men in Black, where Tommy Lee Jones is training Will Smith and he says something like, if people new every day how many threats to the earth we averted, or how many times there was a alien spaceship threatening to use their deathray, people would never be able to go about their happy little lives.

I think the worst part of the 24/7 news cycle is that - in many ways it prevents people from goign on with their happy little lives. I think for instance, that we largely talked ourselves into the last recession, mostly becasue for months all you heard was - when will the bubble burst.. well what does that lead peopel to do - to worry, to not spend money, to not invest... and what causes a downturn? When people are worried, and don't want to spend money or invest. In some ways..maybe we have too much information that we are constantly bombarded with these risks to our happy little lives... on the other hand.. I think even with all the info we have, we don't often get the truth from any of it.

connie

I'm sort of onboard with what connie's saying, but I have to add another critical factor. In our modern internet media age, there's very very little that we don't know. Take the case of the kidnapped Nigerian girls. Sure, the story took awhile to make the international 24/7 news cycle. But even before that, from the exact point at which it went down, thousands upon thousands of people DID know all about it. There may've been questions about how to put into context and respond to it, but it WAS a matter of the public record.

So.....if we know everything, as opposed to say...20%, it feels like a whole lot more things are going on. But - believe it or not and I know a lot of people won't - the percentage of the world's population involved in armed conflict, has been in decline for decades now. But, since we're more aware of what conflict there is, it feels like there's lots more.

One more thing. Our modern "global economy" plays a role. The more more countries are invested in one another, the more reticent they are to engage conflict with them.

 

[Guthrie]

You don't know me - There were no gas chambers -

I am not 100% over Nukes but it's a thought - funny one too if they are not true.

Really, cause I visited gas chambers when I was in Europe.

So has millions of people. You really dont think the holocaust happened?

 

[connieb]

Talked ourselves into the great recession? Hah what a comical joke. Or Clinton overturned a half-century old act designed to prevent the type of speculation and gambling that lead to it for his cronies on Wall st.

The US is by far the safest country on Earth. it is militarized up its ass in an unprecedented fashion in world history. It has hundreds of bases around the world and has a virtual monopoly on military force.

But yes, the media keep us afraid because the governments prefers our fear to give consent to polcies that harm us, help the rich, their true electorate, and threaten the security of the world.

The US, as the view of world opinion has shown, is the greatest danger to world peace. There are plenty of scumbags out there, dont get me wrong. But far and away, we are deliberately embarked on a path of imperialist that has blowbacks for the population, but not elite who run our society.

Two times the world was within one command of nuclear war. Both times a Soviet commander overturned a commanding officer and refused to fire.

The recession was coming whether we talked about the bubble every day or not. Economies are cyclical. but, the extent, timing and nature of the bubble bursting and the eventually level of the collapse and the duration of the recession could have in large part been affected by public confidence in the economic system as it was influenced by the media. An economy can't and doesn't grow unless the people are confident, and if every day you hear doom and gloom stories - public confidence will be affected.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Gov'ts purpose in the fear mongering. In this country at least - the parties are simply two sides of the same coin.

 

[Guthrie]

I'm sort of onboard with what connie's saying, but I have to add another critical factor. In our modern internet media age, there's very very little that we don't know. Take the case of the kidnapped Nigerian girls. Sure, the story took awhile to make the international 24/7 news cycle. But even before that, from the exact point at which it went down, thousands upon thousands of people DID know all about it. There may've been questions about how to put into context and respond to it, but it WAS a matter of the public record.

So.....if we know everything, as opposed to say...20%, it feels like a whole lot more things are going on. But - believe it or not and I know a lot of people won't - the percentage of the world's population involved in armed conflict, has been in decline for decades now. But, since we're more aware of what conflict there is, it feels like there's lots more.

One more thing. Our modern "global economy" plays a role. The more more countries are invested in one another, the more reticent they are to engage conflict with them.

There is little truth in it.

Americans have historically always been a frightened country. Extensive research has been done on this. I am sure TV has played some role, but it is minor a best.

Her idea that we talked ourselves into the financial crisis is utterly false, baseless nonsense and a real salt to the wound of those who suffered from it.

 

[connieb]

I'm sort of onboard with what connie's saying, but I have to add another critical factor. In our modern internet media age, there's very very little that we don't know. Take the case of the kidnapped Nigerian girls. Sure, the story took awhile to make the international 24/7 news cycle. But even before that, from the exact point at which it went down, thousands upon thousands of people DID know all about it. There may've been questions about how to put into context and respond to it, but it WAS a matter of the public record.

So.....if we know everything, as opposed to say...20%, it feels like a whole lot more things are going on. But - believe it or not and I know a lot of people won't - the percentage of the world's population involved in armed conflict, has been in decline for decades now. But, since we're more aware of what conflict there is, it feels like there's lots more.

One more thing. Our modern "global economy" plays a role. The more more countries are invested in one another, the more reticent they are to engage conflict with them.

I agree with you Fairsheet, about the internet and sort of having eyes and ears all over the world. But, my only concern is that - how much of that are biased interpretations of what is the "truth"? I don't know really. As much as I can I try to find out each side's story then assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think the perception of the state of war is much like the perception of violent crime or child abduction. You were actually a a greater risk when I was a kid of being abducted by a stranger than you are today, yet it is today, that parents are so over the top and hellicoptering. But, 40 years ago, you may have heard of some random child abduction all the way across the country if it came to some sort of horrific end and made the national news. Now, you hear about it practically in real time. And, instead of being able to filter out the increased information versus the actual increasing of events... it leads people to believe there is a greater danger than there is.

 

[fairsheet]

The nuclear weapons aren't fake. Thats like saying the holocaust is fake. Waste of time to discuss.

Acutally, I'm kinda liking this idea! Let's take WWII era Japan. The Emperor finally came to the conclusion that surrender was inevitable. He had a problem though. Japanese culture counseled fighting to the death rather than surrendering.

So...Hirohito called Truman and they hatched a plan. They could "fake" the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That way, the Japanese could witness the destruction at their newsreel movie houses and Hirohito could demonstrate to them that by fighting to the death, they'd probably be signing the death warrant for Japan itself. Hirohito just had to make sure these newsreels weren't shown anywhere near Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

And, it would allow Japan to save face by showing the world that it really wasn't their choice to surrender but........by that point, they really had no other choice.

Whaddya think?....Is this the ticket?

 

[Guthrie]

The recession was coming whether we talked about the bubble every day or not. Economies are cyclical. but, the extent, timing and nature of the bubble bursting and the eventually level of the collapse and the duration of the recession could have in large part been affected by public confidence in the economic system as it was influenced by the media. An economy can't and doesn't grow unless the people are confident, and if every day you hear doom and gloom stories - public confidence will be affected.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Gov'ts purpose in the fear mongering. In this country at least - the parties are simply two sides of the same coin.

No, the financial collapse was not a run of the mill recession. You are 100 percent wrong, no offense. It was part of a deliberate policy to tie wall street in with banks and vice verse. Thats what caused it and it was largely a Clinton era policy extended by Bush. Banks are following the same policies now with minor changes, mostly cosmetic.

Prior to the recession people were extremely confident. Those in the know had their doubts, but the average consumer didn't.

The idea that economies are cyclical is largely a myth. There is some truth in it, no doubt. But by and large its a myth of the free market. Well, there is no free market. But thats another story. One who would think economies are cyclical would be in favor of strong government intervention to thwart that. In any case, you interpretation of what caused the financial crisis is simply demonstrably false. We didn't talk ourselves into it and had we not have allowed banks to overturn decades old laws then it would have happened. De-regulation followed by collapse.

 

[fairsheet]

I agree with you Fairsheet, about the internet and sort of having eyes and ears all over the world. But, my only concern is that - how much of that are biased interpretations of what is the "truth"? I don't know really. As much as I can I try to find out each side's story then assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think the perception of the state of war is much like the perception of violent crime or child abduction. You were actually a a greater risk when I was a kid of being abducted by a stranger than you are today, yet it is today, that parents are so over the top and hellicoptering. But, 40 years ago, you may have heard of some random child abduction all the way across the country if it came to some sort of horrific end and made the national news. Now, you hear about it practically in real time. And, instead of being able to filter out the increased information versus the actual increasing of events... it leads people to believe there is a greater danger than there is.

"Biased interpretation of the truth" is historically ubiquitous. It's human universal. The only difference today, is that we have way more things to interpret in a biased fashion and it's way more convenient to sell those interpretations.

 

[fairsheet]

There is little truth in it.

Americans have historically always been a frightened country. Extensive research has been done on this. I am sure TV has played some role, but it is minor a best.

Her idea that we talked ourselves into the financial crisis is utterly false, baseless nonsense and a real salt to the wound of those who suffered from it.

Frankly, I don't think debating the merits of a specific example, does the top-posted "question" justice.

 

[Queen Titania]

Really, cause I visited gas chambers when I was in Europe.

So has millions of people. You really dont think the holocaust happened?

You visited no gas chambers - the Russians had 're built' stuff. shoah business

With out a single doubt I know there were none - I did once just like everyone else but one little doubt came into my head because of the words of a Jew always it has been the honest Jews - and with great courage I started on the long and painful trail to truth -

I have done a few Holocaust epics on here already but if you are really interested just ask