Sid and Marty Krofft attempted to open a theme park at one point in the seventies, and I guess it was pretty far along before it was abandoned. I had an oil painting of mushrooms playing badmitten which I was told, came from this park.

Hey, well, it WAS the seventies, after all.

>> ^Eklek:
Great clip!
Male voice while woman looks at clothes in the shop: "She could sell me one any time", ??

US tax dollars at work, ten years and the thing is still the size of an 80's satellite dish, and has to be mounted on a humvee for mobility. Why when every piece of commercial technology continues to get smaller, does the military tech stay huge. What the hell, stop watching the seventies sci-fi and gloating that your tech is way smaller than that. Active denial systems should be hand held by now. What, do we need to get NOKIA to make them?

Hmm, I'll take a shot at it.

I blame it all on birth control. First hormonal birth control appeared in the 1960's; give it a few years to get it perfected and popular then.... POOF - In the seventies, (from the first article above): "The SYF lifestyle first appeared in primitive form in the U.S. during the seventies, after young women started moving into higher education, looking for meaningful work, and delaying marriage." What, might you ask, does birth control have to do with the explosion of women venturing into higher education, meaningful work, and delaying marriage? They gained the ability to control their fertility cycles. This allowed women to drastically change their role in society. (Remember the recent TV ad for Always pads where the little African girl can stay in school? Very much like that, but take it to the next level.) Now, it is so much easier for women to make long-term commitments required for a PhD or a successful corporate job without the worry of getting pregnant. The nation's obesity problem can also be blamed on birth control, since no longer is the woman's role in society to stay home and cook nutritious meals for the fam. Hell no, she's out gettin' paid like everyone else! Thus, corporate America cooks more of our meals instead (and in large portions of high calorie density, since it makes economic sense for them), and we get chunky. But I digress - back to the New World Woman, with her higher education and even higher salary. Then, as the first article states: she'll "move from their native village or town to Boston or Berlin or Seoul because that’s where the jobs, boys, and bars are—and they spend their earnings on themselves." Birth control also means women require less of a commitment before sex, and, as the second article points out (not that it had to), the men are perfectly okay with this, and take full advantage. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anything in either of these articles that isn't an effect of either birth control or its impact on society.

so, to answer yer question calvados, I am in the buckles of the bible belt, "Praise the lords", sayin' graces, and, evidence of evangelism, though not as hard and heavy as in the seventies and 80s, lotta professed Christains here, shows up on their desks, bumper-stickers, and speech.....gotta get NE of Texas for some Bible bashiers in numbers....we love Gee whiz down Texas way......

i rummaged through an abandoned liquor store back in 86' (did a lot of abandoned building scrounging), and found a cardboard cut-out promotional poster for Schlitz....the store was in a predominantly black community, so the add was this debonair brother and his girl, both sportin' some fly seventies fro's and sippin' the gold...not the Bull, which is malt liquor and just as nasty as Schlitz....

Anyhow, damn Raven, you remind me of all the gals that are so hard to find, because I'm not hangin' out at college anymore....all the chicks my age are either un-hip, tonnes-hips, or all hithced an shit......

What's a 40-something who want's a youngster as hip as the old man to'do??!!

Oh that's right.....nevrmind, good ol' Canniba S. Sativa!!

I downvoted the "don't feed the trolls" comment because it's naively out of place in this thread. This thread has featured some of the most level-headed and intelligent comments from all three sides of the issue I've seen in ages, on the sift, and in general. And anyone who's been at the Sift any time knows that I don't dispense praise towards q-shroom lightly, but his points were ultimately well made and I'm rather ashamed of the amount of downvotes his initial comment received.

I've experienced and witnessed all sorts of prejudice, and it all sucks hard.


"What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

Funny, I was thinking of mentioning that in Polish, a marriage is a marriage, a "Ślub". The legal "civil marriage" is a "Ślub cywilny".

Run a google search on 
46;lub koscielny (Church Marriage), however, and the links plummet - because adding anything else to "Ślub" is pointless because it's ASSUMED in that Polish society that you're referring to the church service if you're not qualifying it with the "civil/civilian" adjective.

This theory holds true if you swap out "marriage" for "wedding" and conjugate the words appropriately.

So what's the point of my Polish linguistics lesson? Consider the rest of the world where reducing a wedding to some abstract contract rather than a holy union blessed by God is like talking about a recipe for baked goods that does not reference any food whatsoever in its ingredients list. It's madness.

[The truly clever punster/geek will now somehow elegantly append "Sparta" to that last paragraph... and then make some reference to the way those boys swung both ways.]


"I am so tired of christians acting like they have it so tough. America is 70% christian. SEVENTY PERCENT!!!! Not only is whining like this becoming annoying but it's becoming dangerous for the rest of us. "

Yeah, are they really real' Christians. And by that I mean "love your neighbour types". The crazy nutjobs who claim to pray daily but then bomb the poor and execute minorities by the busload don't count in my books.

I am so tired of christians acting like they have it so tough. America is 70% christian. SEVENTY PERCENT!!!! Not only is whining like this becoming annoying but it's becoming dangerous for the rest of us. You know, the left over small percentage groups. What happens when christians only have 60% of the country! I'll tell you what happens. The same thing that happens when large groups of Muslims feel persecuted for their beliefs. So you get critisism from people for your beliefs. DEAL WITH IT! THE REST OF US HAVE TO! And we don't have a 70% majority!

hey man I'm just showing you what I'm doing, sorry, I think their whole infomercial shit is sleazy and their multilevel marketing crap is CRAP too, but the program works, I'm not associated with them and I really could give a damn if someone cares or doesn't care, excuuusssee me I wont "spam" the sift any more with fitness related posts. It's not like I'm loading this crap on you every day is it? Wow - two msgs in what, SEVENTY days? Sorry to eat your bandwidth up. So I branched out and polluted two whole videos with talk of it. Topic taboo! I've got 3416 comments on the sift and .00087 of them refer to it. Cane me in public. There, now only your posts refer to it. The sift is safe again and you dont have to wade through all my BS.

This show was frikkin' great....has any Canadian skit-comedy come close since then? Hope so, this was mid to late seventies.....

I know, I know, there's no Mississippi Queens in it, but it was all I could find. There are several live performances from the seventies out there on the web, but Leslie was so stoned, he sucked.

Aemaeth
downvote on your comment for gross vagueness.

you say, "True until 4 minutes in", yet do not mention anything specific that you take offense to or disagree with. BE SPECIFIC.

There was nothing negative in this video. perhaps you did not watch the video presented above, as it is a PBS Frontline documentary, and has nothing to do with me ( you say, "as presented by the poster")

you say, "None of the so called experts are members of the church"
please read this page which lists who Frontline interviewed and then please retract your comment. http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/

Gordon B. Hinckley
Gordon B. Hinckley is the 15th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has led the church since March 1995.

Jeffrey Holland
Holland was ordained an apostle of the church in June 1994 and became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles later that year. He received a master's degree in religious education from Brigham Young University (BYU) and has a Ph.D. in American studies from Yale. Prior to joining the Quorum of the Twelve, Holland served as the church commissioner of education and later as president of BYU.

Marlin Jensen
Marlin Jensen is an LDS church historian and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

Daniel Peterson
Daniel Peterson is a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, a member of the university's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, and a contributor to the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research and the Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints. He is the author of numerous articles and books on Mormon history and doctrine.

for the full list, again please visist http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/

You then bring up a story about Mike Wallace (without sources) which has nothing to do with this video. I personally think your quote is rubbish, back it up with a source.

your not starting an arguement, your just being overly vague and bringing up unrelated storys

my comment (5) Mormons are not allowed to share details about their religion to non-members.

Grimm
They aren't allowed to share specific details about the Temple...anything else about the religion is not off limits.

Gorgon
False, Mormons are willing to share their beliefs. See what Grimm said.

__________________________________________

I'll start by admitting that I should have worded this differently to reflect that

"A mormon cannot discuss details of their religion in regards to what happens in their temple"
(disagreeing with scripture and mormon history falls under #3)


from the pbs.org that i cited originally
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/#4

Why is Mormonism sometimes described as a secretive religion?

The most common and visible target for charges of suspicious secrecy in the Mormon religion are the temples. After dedication, these buildings are closed to the public and church members do not talk openly about the rituals that take place within. The church holds that the temple and its rituals are sacred and therefore private, not secret. They maintain that early Christianity featured similar special practices and bodies of knowledge that were kept quiet to preserve their sacred nature.

Church finances are also kept confidential, provoking criticism that there is no way for church members or outsiders to know where money from tithing and other revenue goes. And the church has also been questioned about the secrecy surrounding their defense of doctrine. Latter-day Saints can face excommunication if, after being warned, they continue to publicly discuss problematic or provocative elements of Mormon theology that the church chooses not to draw attention to. Because disciplinary councils that can lead to excommunication are always private, the process of gathering information and the closed meetings that consider the fate of a disciplined member add to the perception of Mormon secrecy.


a quick quote from Marlin Jensen, the executive director of the LDS Family and Church History Department and a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

it's in a sense secret because we don't talk about it outside the temple, we do that only because it's a sacred thing to us. When millions of people have participated in it and kept it confidential to a large extent, it shows you, I think, the seriousness with which that whole experience is taken.
______________________________________

Grimm
you were correct in your answer to the way I had worded it. Once our discussion is done I'll be happy to go back and amend the way I worded my assertion (#5).

Gorgon
you issued a blanket "false" which is incorrect, as mormons are not allowed to talk about the temple. You must've misread my statement as I made no mention of the "willingness" of mormons to share their belief.

MarineGunrock, I remember hearing about the "tumbling bullet" wound from a 5.56mm but have read numerous articles since then refuting that logic. It's apparently an "urban" legend that refuses to die.

As best as I can recall, the only reason for switching calibers was weight. A soldier could carry seventy 30-06, ninety 7.62mm (essentially a shortened .30 cal), or a whopping 210 5.56mm at a given weight. The potential reduction in the weight of the rifle was also a factor (bigger calibers require heavier rifles). There was initially great resistance to this caliber switch, precisely because it produced a much less significant wound. Yes, the velocity was slightly higher, but the 50-grain bullet is hard pressed to produce a wound channel anywhere near the size of a bullet weighing 150-grains and almost twice the cross-sectional area. The disparity increases rapidly when you factor in how much more quickly the lighter caliber loses energy over distance.

Lower lethality, however, was considered a worthwhile trade-off, especially since wounding the enemy is tactically almost as good as killing him and the extra 120 bullets made such wounds significantly more likely. There were also small concerns about the diminished range of the 5.56mm, but that's why we have snipers that carry larger calibers. As far as I am aware, most states do not allow 5.56mm for deer hunting because it is significantly more likely to produce a non-lethal wound. It's been a while (a decade or more) since I've looked into this, but I recall seeing that ballistic tests in every kind of medium showed the 5.56mm to be far less deadly than the 7.62mm, and that's without giving any consideration to how much more quickly the lighter 5.56mm loses energy to range and/or shielding, let alone loss of accuracy to crosswinds or intervening light cover.

History has proven the move to 5.56mm to be the right one but it was definitely a trade-off.

Interestingly, the Soviets made a similar decision about calibers but stuck with a heavier round. They shaved off weight, but not as much, by going with a 7.62x39mm as compared to a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a 110-gr(?) vs. 150-gr round. Their heavier round could punch through shielding a little better than the 50-gr 5.56mm, but they gave up a lot of velocity and the flatter trajectory and accuracy that comes with it. And they still couldn't carry as many rounds as soldiers equipped with the 5.56. I don't know who made the right choice, but I do know that in both case, weight (and hence more ammo) was the determinative factor that outweighed the loss of lethality.

Look, if you guys are getting the message: "There's problems, let's do something about it" out of this video, then great.

But that's not what Carlin's saying. He's saying "Everything's screwed, you have no power." And that's what I'm disagreeing with - it's a wrong, dangerous idea. The person who made the video says "Wake up". Carlin is saying "You have no choice".

And all of you guys know a lot more than a man who's been on this earth for SEVENTY years now.

By the same logic, you should probably shut up and listen to Bush or Cheney - or anyone else older than you. Carlin is a comic, and he's exaggerating for comedic and dramatic effect. But people are taking this stuff seriously. If people really believe that all politicians are just figureheads, put in place to pacify the crowds - then people may lose the power they do legitimately have.