Posted on 05/18/2004 8:55:45 AM PDT by areafiftyone
I assume you mean to infer that the US was more conservative, but actually, the reverse is true. Rememeber, this was a period of tremendous growth in the labor ie 'Progressive' movement. Before socialism was discredited with the collapse of the USSR 70 years later, there was a far reaching assumption that socialism was the natural progression of society.
Re: the media; As you say, time will tell. In the Net era, I greatly discount their influence, and assume that people who elevate its effects are actually working an angle in order to sell their own particular content. (See Hugh Hewitt.)
No, actually I didn't mean that at all — at least not in the modern political sense. Rather, I was thinking more along the lines of difference in social mores and media attitudes toward the nation then as opposed to now. Culturally, the country was far more — what's the best adjective to use — Victorian in its social mores. Most people were not ashamed of their patriotism, and that included most people in the media. The nakedly anti-American slant that we see in much of the so-called mainstream media today would have been unthinkable back then.
We should file class action law suits charging the RATmedia with consumer fraud for alleging to be news organizations when it is nothing but an arm of the democRAT party.
Wolfstar, you are obviously intelligent and can express yourself well, which is why I'm have difficultly reconciling this observation with some of your statements that seem to contradict that position. Perhaps you have not had a chance to explore the period in question to a greater depth or have been unduly influenced by popular perception as it is presented today.
On the contrary, Victorian/Edwardian ideals where smashed during WWI as the young men being slaughtered came to the realization that it was the previous generation that got them into the predictament they found themselves. The Roaring 20's was nothing more than a manifestation of a complete nihilistic mania that swept the country. The anti-armament movement became a world-wide phenomenon that contributed greatly to Hitler's rise to power. Socialism was on the ascendancy and widely believed to be the natural evoluton of society.
The Left has been on the defensive now for around 20 years. Granted, the legacy they left behind continues to fuel the growth of government, but as a viable alternative to free-market capitalism, they have nothing to offer. As support for this contention, what platform is Kerry running on? That he is not Bush; there simply is nothing else that he can advocate that would distinguish himself - that's how commanding the Right controls the agenda today.
Perhaps the problem is that I was not around in 1919 to see for myself. ;-)
Ping
Not quite so.
Both chlorine and ammonia are deadly toxins in their own right and are considered TIC's (Toxic Industrial Chemicals) that, unlike Sarin, have legitimate industrial uses. Other TICs that are cousins of Lewisite and Mustard Gas have been found in Iraq in non industrial settings.
"- Why havn't we seen this video since it was aired??"
Two reasons:
1. As yet, there hasn't been any "indisputable verification by an credible independent experts" that those jugs, in fact, contained chemical weapons.
2. And because the media is currently flogging an even bigger story about "U.S. forces firing on a wedding party, killing over forty innocent civilians, including 10 women and 15 children..."
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.