NBC is abusing small children by using them for a "social experiment"  and profit on a show airing on Wednesday's at 9 EDT/ 8 CDT beginning June 25  called "The Baby Borrowers"    .  On the program teenagers  pretend to be the parents of babies by substituting for the babies' real parents.

Dr. Jan Hunt director of the Natural Child Project   says:  "As a parent, child psychologist and family counselor, I am deeply concerned about the premise of your new show "The Baby Borrowers," and for the present and future emotional health of the babies and young children whose lives will be so strongly affected." 

Scientists have only limited knowledge of how the brain develops in young children.  Babies cannot say  how they feel.  The information the baby receives and its feelings about the information  influences how the neurons in the brain develop.   Scientists  know  that events in a baby's life can positively or negatively  affect brain development.     

According to the news story about the show on the network's Wichita, Ks., affiliate KSNW, the people appearing on the show are volunteers who are not compensated.   How does a baby volunteer to be on a television show?   Using children as performers on a commercial television show without payment should be illegal if it isn't already.   If adults are stupid enough to appear  on a commercial television show without compensation they should be allowed to do so.  But children should not be exploited for profit by heartless television networks.   How can the network know the reasons  why these parents allowed NBC to exploit their babies

Small children should not be used for experiments with the only possible exception being controlled experiments conducted by professional scientists that pose zero threat to the physical or mental health of the children. 

The program claims to show teens how to be parents by taking care of the children for an extended period. Does that mean the babies are working longer than babies would be allowed to work if they were paid television actors?  Hollywood typically has used twins for very small children on television shows to avoid overworking the children.

The program claims to be a "reality show", but the situation is not realistic.  The teen guinea pig parents cannot relate to their pretend babies in the same way a real parent would.   The babies will not relate to total strangers the way they would to their parents.

 I have heard enough about the psychological problems many  former child actors had to  believe that children should only be used in television programs if  absolutely necessary.   This program is not necessary.  

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a nonsense phrase.  It has no real meaning.

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't make any sense to believe in "change"?   I can see believing in religion or love or maybe even music, but believing in "change" makes no sense.  It might make sense to believe in Sen. John McCain's ability to handle the presidency, but believing in some vaguely defined  change is ridiculous.

Bill Clinton suggested "It's time to change America" when he ran in 1992.  I don't recall him changing much of anything, although two years later voters  changed Congress by replacing many Democrats with Republicans.

The slogan "Change We Can Believe In" sounds like something a child might consider impressive, but it has no real meaing.    Not surprisingly, Obama has more appeal to inexperienced  young  voters than to wiser older voters who have seen a lot of fast talking phony politicians.

Obama  a few months ago commented about the psychological state of small town people who believed  in  religion, etc.  What is the psychological  state of  people who believe in some vaguely defined "change"? 

Obama's supporters  must have very empty lives to believe that some vague "change" is going to make their lives better.   Do they expect the president  to provide them some type of psychological satisfaction?

The term sounds like it might be some type of code word that Obama and his supporters understand, but whose meaning is supposed to be unknown to others.

As an historian I am inherently suspicious of politicians who rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level.  Southern populists like Huey Long and George Wallace used such emotional oratory to succeed.  Adolph Hitler was a master of the technique. 

I am also suspicious of politicians who use vague code words.  Politicians sometimes use code words and phrases to cover up what they are doing.  For example, white southern politicians used the phrase "states' rights" to convince people outside the south that southern whites should be allowed to mistreat black American citizens.   Southerns whites argued they were attempting to "preserve their way of life" without mentioning that their way of life involved rape and murder of black residents.       

How can we be sure the that Barack Obama  is not talking about a "change"  designed to reduce the level of democracy in the United States?  What guarantee do his supporters have that "change" is just a con to get them to vote for a candidates who doesn't have the necessary management experience to run one of Donald Trump's small companies?

In Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union a political party offiicial could be more powerful than government officials. In communist states the head of the communist party is often the most powerful person in the country because he determines who holds the government offices.  In the United States, government officials elected by the people are supposed to be more powerful  than  political party officers.  

At one time in the U.S. political party leaders chose political candidates in secret to insure the candidates would serve whatever special interests controlled the party.  State governments created the political primary system to eliminate this form of corruption and insure popular control over the candidate selection  process. 

The Democatic Party is attempting to circumvent the popular selection of candidates by claiming it can tell states when they can hold  presidential primaries.  Allowing political parties to order state to follow  party orders rather than the will of the people in the respective states is a direct assault on the idea of government by the people and a movement to the type of political system of Naxi Germany and the Soviet Union. 

The states of Michigan and Florida need to tell the Democratic Party to seat their delegates or face the prospect of not having a presidential candidate on the November ballot.  Allowing the a small group of  Democrats to deny voters in their states the right to participate in the candidate selection  process would  a violation of the oath state officials take to defend the Constitution.

You've seen the following plot dozens of times on television.  The police decide a death is an accident or suicide and someone like Jim Rockford, Harry Orwell or maybe Jessica Fletcher has to convince the police the death was a murder.

Today two real live Harry Orwells,  retired NYPD detectives  Kevin Gannon and Anthony Duarte, are attempting to convince law enforcement officers in  many jurisdictions that a series  of drownings  are murders rather than  accidents or suicides.  Like the cops on  PI shows the police in most of these cases have taken the easy way out and written the cases off  so they don't have  to  risk investigating  crimes that might be very difficult to solve.  The Federal Bureau Investigation  isn't interested  if local police don't think there is a problem.

The investigation began with the death of college student Patrick McNeill, who drowned in New York City in 1997. Gannon made a promise to McNeill's parents that he would never give up on his case. They have already convinced Minnesota authorities that the death of University of Missesota student Christopher Jenkins was a homicide instead of an accident. 

They believe 40 or more college men have been murdered many by drowning them in rivers, even in winter.  In the best  tradition of "CSI" they have examined  data on  river currents to determine where each body likely entered the water.  Subsequent examinations of the area around the points of entry has revealed various different smiley faced graffiti.   

I saw an 60's or 70's era movie about urban terrorism years ago. The only thing I remember about the movie is the quote:  "Once is an accident.  Twice is a coincidence.  Three times is enemy action."  

The number of drowning deaths of men with similar characteristics with the associated smiley face indicates the work of a serial killer or killers.  The fact that nine were students at  the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse  is particularly suspicious.  

The idea of murdering  people by drowning them isn't new.  Characters in old gangster movies often talked about  this method of  eliminating someone, although the victim was often first fitted with "cement overshoes" so the body wouldn't be found.   In murder mysteries victims might be drowned in bathtubs, swimming pools, rivers or the ocean.

Drowning provides certain  advantages to murderers.  There is no murder weapon for the police to find  and link the murderer to the crime.  The water may wash off any DNA or fiber evidence.  

Getting the victim into the water can present a problem when the victim isn't cooperative, especially if the victim starts yelling.  The possibility of being seen also increases the risk of being caught.  The first problem can be reduced if the victim is drunk which is one of the similarities of the victims in the smiley face murders.  Putting the victim in the water at night, expecially during cold weather would also reduce risk.  Night fishing isn't as common in cold weather as it is in warm weather so there  would be less chance of someone seeing the crime. 

The fact that people sometimes drown accidentally or commit suicide by drowning benefits murderers, particularly if law enforcement officers don't want to bother with cases that are difficult to solve.  A drowning death might reasonably be classified as an accident if the person was known to be swimming at the time, was at a party along a river bank or perhaps drowned near his or her residence particularly if impaired by alcohol or medication. 

However,  a drowning should be considered suspicious if the police cannot place the person in the vicinity of the place where he or she entered the water or there is anything suspicious about the condition of the body, such as the placement of the arms in some cases studied by Gannon and Duarte.   If the person had been drinking before the death, the police need to determine if the person was physically able to get to the point where the body entered the water particularly if the drowning didn't occur near the route the person would take to get home.
 
If the victims were predominately black instead of predominately white, the Rev. Al  Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson would be screaming for an investigation.  If the victims were female, the news media would be speculating about another Ted Bundy. 

So, why is the FBI refusing to investigate the case? Don't the feds  think white males can be the victims of crimes?

What if the 40 deaths had involved some  symptoms  that might indicate a disease?  For example, what if all  of  those who had died had reported  muscle aches followed by a rash and then an extremely high fever.  The Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization would both be investigating to determine if there was a common cause for the deaths.  The CDC  would want to know if those who died had had physical contact or perhaps contact with the same individual or individuals. Perhaps they  all could have consumed the same food product before becoming sick.  Health officials would rather investigate something that doesn't turn out to be a crisis than risk having an epidemic develop because they didn't take the situation seriously enough.  AIDS was discovered because  doctors  became  suspicious after noticing the increasing appearance of previously rare disorders.

Shouldn't the FBI be just as diligent in investigating a possible criminal epidemic?   The FBI is supposed to be the nation's premier law enforcement agency.   Local law enforcement  agencies are often underfunded and understaffed. They may not have the type of facilities and personnel seen on CSI.   They may be prone to concentrate on obvious crimes instead of attempting to deal with  situations that might  or might not involve crimes.  Local departments  are unlikely  to recognize  serial crimes  that occur in many different jurisdictions. 

Gannon and Duarte  believe more than one killer might be involved because  in some cases  deaths occurred in more than one state on the same day.    Who could be the killer or killers?  The fact the victims were men could indicate female killers, perhaps women wanting to emulate Aileen Wuornos who admitted to killing 7 men.  A woman could lure a man by promising sex or pretending to need help with her car.    A satanic cult is an obvious possibility.   The fact the victims tended to be successful in sports, academics and/or popular could indicate the killers are young males with similar attitudes  of the  Columbine  High School killers.   Members of an informal group  might  link to each other on the Internet and  help each other plan the attacks. 

Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the FBI.   After all  today's FBI isn't the FBI  of Ephrem Zimbalist's Inspector Lewis Erskine.

Today's FBI is the organization whose leaders didn't think  the number of Saudis  learning to fly airliners  in  2001 was worth investigating.  Today's FBI couldn't figure out that a man who wanted to learn how to fly airliners, but not land them,  might be planning to hijack an  airliner and crash it into something.  The FBI initially believed the DC sniper was a lone white male instead of the two black males they eventually caught.

If the FBI refuses to investigate and the Smiley Face deaths turn out to be murders rather than a bizarre coincidence, Congress needs to consider replacing the FBI with a real law enforcement agency that is capable of protecting us from criminals and terrorists.

Comedians regularly question the intelligence of President George W. Bush.  What many don't realize is that Bush  actually got better grades in college than either of the Democratic  candidates he ran against for president. 

Recent comments by Barack Obama indicate the Democrats are once again planning to nominate someone who is less intelligent than Bush. 

Obama is so ignorant he thinks Iran poses no threat to world peace because it is a "tiny nation".

Estimates of Iran's current population range from 65 to 70 million with 24 million males between the ages of 15 and 64 with the population concentrated at the younger end. With it's oil wealth, Iran could finance a very large army.   The total population is comparable to the populations of Germany and Japan when those nations began their attempts to conquer the world that produced World War II.

Japan temporarily conquered the more populous China as well as the South Pacific islands.  Germany temporarily conquered Europe from the French coast to well inside the much larger Soviet Union.  Adolph Hitler may not have established his 1,000 year Reich, but his actions resulted in millions of deaths and destruction of most of Europe, including England.

Iran wouldn't need to  attempt to build an empire to substantially  disrupt the world.  If Iran develops nuclear weapons it could start a nuclear war that would destroy the Middle East. 

Israel an even tinier nation, with a tenth of Iran's population,  already possesses  nuclear weapons.  Because of Israel's small size it would need to develop a first strike capability if Iran  acquired  nuclear weapons. 

It wouldn't take very many nukes to destroy Israel.  To avoid destruction, Israel would need to anticipate a potential Iranian attack and destroy Iran's missiles/planes before Iran could launch any attack.  And, if Israel  quessed wrong and Iran hadn't planned any attack...well they are only "tiny nations". 

Incidentally. I am working on a novel  dealing with  a nuclear war in the Middle East on  a parallel earth. 

Perhaps Obama is smarter than he appears.  Maybe he is just too immature to consider the long term consequences of actions.  In either case, his election could be a prelude to disaster.

The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.

Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.

When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?

The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."

Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?

I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.

Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?

Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?

It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.

I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.

The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.

don't believe either the myth that government might have created HIV or that there are greenhouse gases capable of controlling air temperatures. I find it interesting that some of those who are so gullible that they believe strongly in the greenhouse effect are highly critical of those who believe there is some type of HIV conspiracy. The HIV conspiracy is at least plausible. The greenhouse effect is impossible.

I think that those who believe in some type of HIV conspiracy have watched too many James Bond type movies. However, I recognize that one goal of biological weapons research, such as the United States once conducted, is to develop pathogens that could infect humans. Some scientists speculate that those of European ancestry are less susceptible to the HIV virus because they have the GC-2 gene variation instead of the GC-1 variation that is more common among those of African ancestry. Racists or those concerned about overpopulation might concievably be willing to release such a virus into the population. If Adolph Hitler had developed a virus that would have been more likely to target non-Aryans, he would have released it.

I'm only arguing that a conspiracy is possible not that it exists. I'm not sure that medical knowledge was sufficient prior to 1980 to allow development of a virus capable of targeting broad genetic groups. Viruses (such as various forms of the "flu") capable of killing thousands sometimes seem to appear suddenly. The similarity of HIV to a comparable chimpanze virus indicates that humans could have acquired the virus from a chimpanze by eating an infected one or possibly having sex with it. (Note: a resident of a nearby town is currently facing charges of having sex with a dog.)

The claim that carbon dioxide can increase atmospheric temperature isn't mathematically or scientifically possible. Even those who support the idea admit that the earth's temperature only changed by 1 F (0.17%) during the entire 20th Century. Such a difference is extremely small considering that temperatures in many areas can vary by 20-30 F in a single 24-hour period. Some areas can see a 100 F difference or more between high summer temperatures and low winter temperatures.

The idea of CO2 causing global warming is based in part on a theoritcal model called a black body model that doesn't apply to earth.

CO2 comprises less than 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere. That means other molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by over 2,500 to 1 making it extremely difficult for CO2 to heat the rest of the atmosphere.

The sparse distribution of CO2 would leave huge gaps between CO2 molecules for the limited range of infrared radiation CO2 interacts with to pass through.

Physicist Niels Bohr received a Nobel Prize for his research indicating that gas atoms/molecules don't become hotter after absorbing radiation. The only affect was a change in the energy state of the electrons. In order to absorb additional radiation in a specific wavelength, a atom/molecule would first have to emit radiation in that wavelength.

Bohr's research indicated that molecules absorbed and reemitted radiation in quantum amounts. Thus, absorption of IR radiation by CO2 molecules would break up IR radiation into quantum sized units instead of trapping it.

Physicist R.W. Wood demonstrated in 1909 that greenhouses didn't become warmer by trapping IR radiation.
Natural sources of radiation convert only a small portion of the heat energy they possess to radiation at any one time. The ground and water don't emit enough radiation to heat air that is the same temperature.

  The editor of the Hutchinson, Kansas, News says "Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up"
 
Barack Obama's supporters in the media are piling on Rev. Wright for having the audacity to speak his mind and possibly harm their candidate's chances of being elected president.

Forgive my cynicism, but they are ignoring the fact that Obama made Wright a public figure by using Wright's church to try to convince black voters to vote for him. Politicians have been using church membership to win votes for generations.

I can understand criticizing Wright for his statements about government being responsible for the HIV virus, but why do some like the New York Times criticize him for his statement that the 9/11 attack was punishment for various American actions abroad which killed innocent civilians. Religious leaders have been blaming calamities on "sin" since biblical times.
 

I have read the sermon in question and see nothing wrong with it. As a social scientist I look at human actions in terms of direct cause and effect actions.

I would explain 9/11 in terms of the reaction of al Qaeda to having our troops stationed in their Holy Land and the failure of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs and prevent the attack. The FBI had a man in custody who wanted to learn how to fly planes but not how to land them, but no one at the FBI could foresee the obvious possibility that someone was planning to hijack a plane or planes and deliberately crash them. To me the 9/11 attack occurred because of incompetence at the FBI and CIA.

Preachers look at events from the view point of moral issues of right and wrong. Positive consequences are rewards for doing right. Negative consequences are the punishment for doing wrong. Like the prophets of biblical times Rev. Wright looked at the wrongs he felt America had done and suggested punishment was understandable.

Those who condemn Rev. Wright for his statement about 9/11 reveal themselves as anti religious bigots. They are the ones who should shut up.

I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs. 

My father believed the  rights of freedom of  belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe  in World War II.  I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.

I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors  gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.

America  has a long tradition of  belief in conspiracies.  Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers.  I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.

Wright's statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times.  Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins.  I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King's statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that  he had a duty to speak out  against what he believed to be wrong.

One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong.   If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom,    we must allow them  to continue to do  so even if we disagree with them.  

If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama  not Rev. Jeremiah Wright.   No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years.  If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.

Obama's behaviior is scary in someone who wants to be president.  Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency.  A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he's elected.

Rev. Wright's statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense. 

For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere.  They believe  this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments.   They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature.     Such a small change could  indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences  in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.

Barack Obama's ongoing dispute with his former pastor  Rev. Jeremiah Wright raises serious doubts  about  his fitness for the presidency.   If he had disagreements with his pastor he should have resolved the dispute before he decided to run for president instead of interrupting the campaign for a personal dispute. 

 If he attended the church for 20 years and didn't know what the pastor was saying how can we expect him to know what his advisors are telling him?  We need a president who knows what is going on around him, not a president who is oblivious to what those around him are saying.

 Obama made a bad situation worse  by  deciding  to condemn Rev. Wright's statements.  Obama should have admitted he made a mistake  by continuing the attend the church considering the pastor's views instead of blaming Wright for having such views.

 Politicians who attempt to  tell preachers what views they should or shouldn't have are not desirable in a nation that prohibits the state from dictating to the church.

Perhaps Obama's  relatively young age and lack of experience could explain his use of the media to argue with his former pastor. If so then we should wait for him to mature before choosing him as president.

I'm not an expert on Senate rules regulating campaign activities.  I would like to know if it is legal for a Senator to use his Senate website to further his presidential campaign.  Barack Obama has decided to use his Senate website to help his presidential campaign  by posting  information  about  the earmarks he has requested as a Senator. 

If tax money is used to fund Senate website activities than Obama's  action is unethical because it forces taxpayers to subsidize his presidential campaign.  The appropriate place to post the list would have been Obama's presidential website.

His disclosure indicates further unethical activity by requesting money for the Chicago Medical Center which increased his wife's salary by nearly  $200,000  after he was elected to the Senate .  Is this  earmark  request  a  payback for a bribe?  His supporters have also potentially benefited from his earmark requests. 

The Senate, or a federal grand jury, needs to investigate this possibility.  This question needs to be resolved before Democrats decide whether to nominate Obama as their presidential  candidate.  If they cannot resolve the legal issues first they may once again have a candidate running for office with a special prosecutor breathing down his neck.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t understand the problem with the two major parties.  After announcing he wouldn’t seek the presidency as a third party candidate, he suggested he would support a major party candidate who leveled with the American people about the issues facing the country.  Unfortunately, major party candidates are prisoners of their own parties.

Those running on a major party ticket need  the support of party activists who often  have an unrealistic oversimplified view of issues.  These activists want candidates who will at least give lip service to their views.  Many of these activists are what longshoreman Eric Hofer once described as “True Believers” who believe they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.    

Democrats, for example, want a candidate who will end U.S. involvement in Iraq regardless of the consequences.  They don’t care what happens afterwards because they cannot comprehend any negative consequences such as al Qaeda taking control of Iraq or the substantial number of American casualties that might result from a precipitous retreat from a combat zone.

Many Republicans want all illegal immigrants removed from the country regardless of the economic consequences.  They would prefer to endure a severe recession or depression than have to share the country with “illegals”.  The anti-immigrant group doesn’t understand that we have a shortage of younger workers and will need even more workers as the baby boomer generation retires.

Bloomberg has no national constituency that he could encourage to support either major party candidate so his offer of support to one of them is meaningless.  Bloomberg can change the situation only  if he runs for president himself.  As a third party candidate he would be free to take any position on the issues he felt was appropriate.   

Only by running for president Bloomberg could demonstrate that Americans want a candidate who levels with them.  Of course maybe Bloomberg is wrong.  Maybe Americans prefer a president who lies to them.  Maybe they want a president who tells them what they want to hear instead of what they need to know.
 
  

I'm watching a PBS special I recorded earlier called the "Boomer Generation".  I hope the rest of it  is better researched than  the part about the Kennedy administration.  The speaker ignores the fact the oldest of us were high school freshmen when John F. Kennedy was elected and senior when he was assassinated.  We were not a significant factor in the civil rights  movement as the show suggests.  The young people who aided the civil rights movement were from the generation born during the depression and WWII who are often ignored because there were fewer of them. They were the first members of the Peace Corps.  Except in a couple of states we couldn't even vote until the 1968 election.

The documentary also misrepresents 50's television by ignoring the numerous female characters like Lois Lane who were not housewives and who may have encouraged baby boomer girls to look for careers outside the home when they became women.

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1227591


    

      

The idea that fascism is "on the right" is a common myth spread by those who haven't taken the time to study it.  Adolf Hitler was an avowed socialist who headed the National Socialist Workers Party.  He did not establish his administration to benefit business.  He merely recognized that he needed German industrialists to produce his war machine and thus allowed them to keep their businesses so long as they weren't Jewish and didn't question him.  

He co-opted non-Jewish business owners by telling them if they didn't support him the communists would take over instead.  He treated Jewish business owners the same way the communists treated all business owners.  he convinced ordinary Germans that Jewish business owners including small business owners as well as bankers were the cause of German economic problems.

The non-Jewish business owners who supported Hitler lost their political rights just like other Germans. 

Democrats like to call Republicans "fascists" but if fascism is likely to come to America it is more likely to be brought in by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Democrats are more prone to the charismatic leaders who could provide a fascist leader.


The myth of fascism is that it is the opposite of communism. The fact is that fascism is just a less extreme version of totalitarianism than is communism.

Many Americans seem ignorant about what the job of President of the United States involves. The debate over who to nominate largely ignores the fact that the President is the nation's Chief Executive Officer.

Democrats are preoccupied with the color or sex of their candidates. Many Republicans are preoccupied with which candidate is "conservative" enough.

Too little attention has been paid to who has the most relevant experience to be an executive. Democrats had the candidate with the best resume, Gov. Bill Richardson, but they have rejected him in favor of media stars Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have never run any large organization. We can evaluate Richardson on the basis of how he ran the Department or Energy or how effective he has been as a governor.

Republicans at least considered experienced executives, even if they devoted more attention to their ideological views. We can evaluate John McCain on how he ran the Navy fighter wing he was in charge of. Governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee could be evaluated on how they handled their governorships.

Ignorant voters blindly assume that a candidate who agrees with them will be able to implement policies they support. The reality is that even the most well meaning candidate cannot automatically gain support for his or her proposals. Gaining approval for an agenda requires experience.