#Linden johnson | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 5 months

Text

By: Julian Adorney, Mark Johnson and Geoff Laughton

Published: Mar 23, 2024

In The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard tells the story of a jet fighter pilot who was practicing high-speed maneuvers. As Willard puts it, “She turned the controls for what she thought was a steep ascent—and flew straight into the ground. She was unaware that she had been flying upside down.”

What if we were flying upside down? But let’s go further. What if an entire generation was flying upside down–flying through fog and danger, unable to see either ground or sky, and the well-intended adjustments pushed on them by “experts” were just bringing them closer to catastrophe?

That’s the lens through which we interpret Abigail Shrier’s New York Times bestseller Bad Therapy.

There’s no denying that the youngest generation is in crisis. As the Addiction Center notes, members of Generation Z “run a higher risk of developing a substance abuse problem than previous age groups.” A 2015 report found that 23.6 percent of 12th graders use illicit drugs. The American Psychological Association reports that just 45 percent of Gen Zers report that their mental health is “very good” or “excellent,” compared with 51 percent of Gen Xers and 70 percent of Boomers. A concerning 42 percent of Gen Zers have been diagnosed with a mental health condition, and an astounding 60 percent take medication to manage their mental health.

It gets worse. The rate of self-harm for girls age 10-14 increased over 300 percent from 2001 to 2019 (before the pandemic). According to a 2021 CDC survey, 1 in 3 teenage girls have seriously considered killing themselves.

Well-meaning therapists, teachers, and school counselors are trying to help the next generation to rise up. But what if everyone involved is upside down? What if, like the fighter pilot that Willard describes, what they think is rising up is actually bringing them into deeper danger? Shrier makes a strong case that that’s exactly what’s happening.

Lots of educators encourage kids to spend more time checking in with their feelings. In the 2021-2022 school year, 76 percent of principals said that their school had adopted a Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) curriculum. Common SEL practices include: asking students how they’re feeling at the start of each day, teaching that students should be more aware of how they’re feeling in any given moment, and encouraging students to use activities like writing and art to express their feelings.

The problem is that all of this obsession with feelings can actually make students feel worse. As Yulia Chentsova Dutton, head of the the Culture and Emotions Lab at Georgetown University, says, “Emotions are highly reactive to our attention to them.” “Certain kinds of attention to emotions, focus on emotions,” she explains, “can increase emotional distress. And I’m worried that when we try to help our young adults, help our children, what we do is throw oil into the fire.” Or to put it another way: when we ask kids over and over again how they’re feeling, we’re subtly and accidentally encouraging them to feel bad.

The reason is that, as psychiatry professor Michael Linden explains, most of us don’t feel happy all the time. Dealing with life involves ignoring a certain amount of moment-by-moment discomfort: I’m tired, my feet hurt, I’m sore from sitting down all day, I’m a little worried about my mom. When we encourage kids to check in many times per day on how they’re feeling, we’re tacitly encouraging them to bring to the surface–and then dwell on–all the things going on in their minds that are not “happiness.” That’s why, as Linden puts it, “Asking somebody ‘how are you feeling?’ is inducing negative feelings. You shouldn’t do that.”

But it gets worse.

Obsessing over our emotions can actually prevent us from doing the things that might make us feel better. Anyone who’s spent too long wallowing after a bad break-up knows this; at a certain point, you have to shelve your unpleasant emotions so that you can get on with your life. Psychologists describe two mental states that we can occupy at any given time: “action orientation” and “state orientation.” “State orientation” is where you focus primarily on yourself (e.g., how you feel about doing the task at hand, whether your wrist hurts or you’re starting to get sick, etc.). “Action orientation” is where you primarily focus on the task at hand. As a study published by Cambridge University Press notes, only the latter is actually conducive to pursuing and accomplishing goals. “State orientation is a personality that has difficulty in taking action toward goal fulfillment,” the authors warn. By encouraging young people to focus so much on their feelings, we might be hurting their ability to adopt the mindset necessary to accomplish goals in life. If so, that would make them even more unhappy.

But the dangers posed by well-meaning “experts” telling students to fly in the wrong direction–towards the ground instead of towards the sky–go well beyond encouraging unhappiness and depression. Rates of suicide and self-harm for young people are skyrocketing. But in their attempts to cope with the spike, well-meaning administrators might be making the problem worse. Here are questions from the 2021 Florida High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered to students age 14 and up:

During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that you stopped doing your usual activities? During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide? During the past 12 months, did you make a plan about how you would attempt suicide? During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide? If you attempted suicide during the past 12 months, did any attempt result in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?

A survey authored by the CDC asked students “During the past year, did you do something to purposely hurt yourself without wanting to die, such as cutting or burning yourself on purpose?” Another survey offered this question to Delaware middle schoolers: “Sometimes people feel so depressed about the future that they may consider attempting suicide or killing themselves. Have you ever seriously thought about killing yourself?”

Administrators may be asking these questions with the best of intentions, but the end result is to normalize suicide in young peoples’ minds. If you were 12 years old and taking a survey like this along with all of your classmates, you might reasonably conclude that suicide, or at least suicidal ideation and/or self harm, were pretty common at your school. Otherwise, why would everyone your age have to take such an exhaustive assessment about it?

One reason this is so dangerous is that, as Shrier writes, “The virality of suicide and self-harm among adolescents is extremely well-established.” Following the release of Netflix’s TV show 13 Reasons Why, which some said valorized a fictional girl who killed herself, several studies found a spike in teen suicide rates. The CDC agrees. In a post warning about the dangers of “suicide contagion,” the CDC said that journalists should avoid things like:

“Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news.”

“Reporting ‘how-to’ descriptions of suicide.”

“Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends” (i.e., as a “means of coping with personal problems”).

But this is most of what the surveys described above are doing. They are deluging students with repetitive and excessive discussion of suicide. They are describing different methods for killing yourself (e.g., cutting or burning yourself). One survey, which asks students who have considered killing themselves why they did so (possible answers include “demands of schoolwork,” “problems with peers or friends,” and “being bullied”) is a textbook example of presenting suicide as a “means of coping with personal problems.”

The authors of these surveys seem to at least recognize the risk that students are flying upside down, and that these surveys might take them closer to the ground. One survey concludes by telling students, “If any survey questions or your responses have caused you to feel uncomfortable or concerned and you would like to talk to someone about your feelings, talk to your school’s counselor, to a teacher, or to another adult you trust.” The survey also includes links to different hotlines.

Communicating to kids that suicide is normal and a possible solution to their problems might be the worst way that some schools are failing kids, but it’s also far from the only way.

Schools are increasingly lax about standards, willing to let almost anyone get away with almost anything. Some accommodations do make sense: for example, it makes sense to give a kid with dyslexia more time to complete the verbal component of the SAT. But Shrier argues that standards are falling for perfectly healthy students too. “School counselors—students’ in-school ‘advocates,’” Shrier writes, now “lobby teachers to excuse lateness or absence, forgive missed classwork, allow a student to take walks around the school in the middle of class, ratchet grades upward, reduce or eliminate homework requirements, offer oral exams in place of written ones, and provide preferential seating to students who lack even an official diagnosis.”

Shrier documents stories of students who have been allowed to turn in work late because they were having a “tough Mental Health Day” or because “I was having a rough day and dealing with my gender identity.”

The problem with this is that one of the primary things that children and teenagers do is try to figure out the boundaries of the world. When a child throws a tantrum, it’s not malicious–they’re trying to understand this new world and figure out what they can get away with. As Jordan Peterson writes in Twelve Rules for Life, young children are “like blind people, searching for a wall.” “They have to push forward, and test,” he writes, “to see where the actual boundaries lie.” What’s true of young children is also true of older children and even (to a lesser extent) adults. All of us are trying to figure out the rules of life–that is, what we can get away with. If well-meaning teachers and counselors tell students that one of the rules is that you don’t have to do your homework on time if you say that you’re having a rough day, then we shouldn’t be surprised when more young people seem to manifest rough days.

But this is the opposite of what students need–especially the truly disadvantaged students who so many of these efforts seem to be aimed at helping. In his memoir Troubled, clinical psychologist Rob Henderson writes that, “People think that if a young guy comes from a disorderly or deprived environment, he should be held to low standards.” But, he warns, “this is misguided. He should be held to high standards. Otherwise, he will sink to the level of his environment.”

So kids are depressed, anxious, and poorly behaved. Educators are trying to help them by encouraging them to tap in more to their feelings, by asking them more questions about suicide, and by trying to accommodate their difficulties even more. But all of this is backwards. Educators are encouraging students to do what they think will take them higher–away from the ground and back to the safety of the sky. But both kids and educators are upside down. And every adjustment that the “experts” are telling kids to make just brings them closer to the ground–and a catastrophic collision.

Now’s a good time to emphasize that this isn’t all schools, all teachers, or all administrators–not by a long shot. There are heroic educators working every day to help students to rein in their problems, stop taking advantage of accommodations that they don’t need, and develop the emotional resilience to deal with the problems of adolescence. But the problems documented above do represent a trend. And while it’s not every school, the trend is too big to ignore.

What will happen if this trend continues–if an entire generation keeps going “up” until they crash into the ground? Most severe and most damaging is the harm to the generation itself. Shrier tells the story of Nora, a 16-year-old girl who helps put a human face on all of the brutal statistics described in the introduction to this piece. Nora describes her friends as going through a litany of serious mental health problems: “anxiety,” “depression”; “self-harm” (as Shrier notes, “lots of self-harm”) including “Scratching, cutting, anorexia,” “Trichotillomania” (pulling your hair out by the roots); and more. As Shrier writes, “Dissociative identity disorder, gender dysphoria, autism spectrum disorder, and Tourette’s belong on her list of once-rare disorders that are, among this rising generation, suddenly not so rare at all.”

But the dangers can also ripple out beyond just one generation. The full danger may be nothing less than an imperiling of our democracy.

As Shrier notes, many kids in school are almost constantly monitored. Her own kids have “recess monitors” at their school–“teachers who involve themselves in every disagreement at playtime and warn kids whenever the monkey bars might be slick with rain.” On the bus home, they have “bus monitors.” Better that kids know they’re being observed by an adult at all times than that one kid push another to give him his lunch money.

One of the most pervasive forms of monitoring is what are called “shadows”—ed techs or paraeducators whose job is to cling closely to one particular student so that they don’t have any issues. The original intention certainly made sense. If a child had autism, a shadow could help the kid to integrate into the main classroom rather than being sent to Special Ed. But, as Shrier notes, scope creep has been substantial. “Today,” she writes, “public schools assign shadows to follow kids with problems ranging from mild learning disabilities to violent tendencies.” Nor is the problem restricted to public schools: “private schools advise affluent parents to hire shadows to trail neurotypical kids for almost any reason.” Shadows monitor and guide almost every interaction with their chosen student, from when to raise her hand to how long to hug a fellow student.

As Peter Gray, professor of psychology at Boston College and an expert on child development, puts it, “Kids today are always under the situation of an observer. At home, the parents are watching them. At school, they’re being observed by teachers. Out of school, they’re in adult-directed activities. They have almost no privacy.”

But when kids spend their entire waking lives being monitored by an adult, they start to think that kind of monitoring is normal. Worse, they start to think that they need it. If a child gets constant guidance from an adult, what are the odds that she’s going to cultivate her own independence? If she expects authoritarian adults to monitor and run every aspect of her life already, what is she going to think of a liberal democracy that more-or-less leaves people free to handle their own affairs?

No wonder just 27 percent of Americans age 18-25 strongly agree with the statement that “Democracy may have problems, but it is the best system of government” (compared to 48 percent of Americans as a whole).

So what’s the solution? If our kids are upside down and getting lower to the ground, then the only thing that makes sense is to help them reverse course. Is there something that’s the opposite of always asking them about their feelings, telling them that life is too much for them or their peers to cope with, and constantly telling them that they’re too fragile to do their homework if they’re having a rough day? Yes. That something is called antifragility.

Antifragility is the idea that whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Greg Lukianoff note in The Coddling of the American Mind, kids are naturally antifragile. That doesn’t just mean that they’re tough. It means that “they require stressors and challenges in order to learn, adapt, and grow.” Not letting a kid hand in homework late doesn’t just teach them to do their homework on time; it also teaches them that they can deal with a 0 in class and not die. They can pick themselves up, brush themselves off, and even earn an A in the class overall if they bust a sweat for the rest of the semester. Telling a kid who’s having a “tough mental health day” that you’re sorry to hear it but they still need to take today’s test doesn’t just teach the kid that low-level excuses don’t fly; it also teaches them that a hard day isn’t enough to stop them. It teaches them that they’re stronger than whatever negative emotions they’re currently experiencing.

It’s time to remind kids that they are strong–before it’s too late.

All quotes not otherwise attributed come from Abigail Shrier’s book Bad Therapy.

About the Authors

Julian Adorney is a Contributing Writer to FAIR’s Substack and the founder of Heal the West, a Substack movement dedicated to preserving and protecting Western civilization. You can find him on X at @Julian_Liberty.

Mark Johnson is a trusted advisor and executive coach at Pioneer Performance Partners and a facilitator and coach at The Undaunted Man. He has more than 25 years of experience optimizing people and companies. He blogs at The Undaunted Man’s Substack.

Geoff Laughton is a Relationship Architect/Coach, multiple-International Best-Selling Author, Speaker, and Workshop Leader. He is the founder of The Undaunted Man. He has spent the last twenty-six years coaching people world-wide, with a particular passion for supporting those in relationship, and helping men from all walks of life step up to their true potential.

#Julian Adorney #Mark Johnson #Geoff Laughton #Abigail Shrier #Bad Therapy #human psychology #psychology #emotions #emotional distress #feelings #antifragility #coddling #emotional fragility #religion is a mental illness

19 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 2 years

Text

How Lyndon Johnson Got His Name

Lyndon Baines Johnson is one of those few Presidents or political leaders who is instantly identifiable by his initials -- "LBJ" -- an exclusive club also populated by TR, FDR, and JFK but few others. Richard Nixon spent years and tons of energy working to become a member of that group, going as far as naming his autobiography RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. But LBJ's initials became a recognizable brand long before he became President; he also had the added advantage of being able to monogram everything in his home -- naturally called the LBJ Ranch -- with his initials since they were also shared by his wife (Lady Bird Johnson), his two daughters (Lynda Bird Johnson and Luci Baines Johnson), and even one of his dogs ("Little Beagle Johnson" -- which wasn't one of the dogs President Johnson was famously photographed picking up by their ears, those beagles were creatively named "Him" and "Her").

But where did the name "Lyndon" come from? LBJ's middle name -- "Baines" -- was his mother's maiden name, but "Lyndon" wasn't a family name. In fact, LBJ didn't have a name for the first three months of his life. The man who would one day become the 36th President of the United States spent the first three months of his life just being called "Baby". Of course, he couldn't spend the rest of his life with the name "Baby", so LBJ's parents, Sam Ealy Johnson and Rebekah Baines Johnson, finally came to an agreement on what he would be called. Since LBJ was a far better storyteller than I will ever be, I'll let him explain, courtesy of the LBJ Library's always-incredible Oral History Project, as well as former @lbjlibrary Director Mark K. Updegrove's awesome book, Indomitable Will: LBJ In The Presidency.

According to LBJ:

"I was three months old when I was named. My father and mother couldn't agree on a name. The people my father liked were heavy drinkers -- pretty rough for a city girl. She didn't want me named after any of them.

Finally, there was a criminal lawyer -- a country lawyer -- named W.C. Linden. He would go on a drunk for a week after every case. My father liked him and he wanted to name me after him. My mother didn't care for the idea but she said finally that it was alright, she would go along with it if she could spell the name the way she wanted to. So that is what happened.

[Later] I was campaigning for Congress. An old man with a white carnation in his lapel came up and said, 'That was a very good speech. I want to vote for you like I always have. The only thing I don't like about you is the way you spell your name.'

He then identified himself...as W.C. Linden."

#History #Lyndon B. Johnson #LBJ #President Johnson #LBJ Library #Presidents #Presidential History #50th Anniversary of LBJ's Death

17 notes · View notes

ave-immaculata · 10 months

Text

walked into my mom falling asleep to a video and found out it was men on a panel discussing Linden B Johnson since "the anniversary of the JFK assassination is next week" and she wanted to know if he was involved

#MAAM DID YOU NEED TO BRUSH UP FOR THE TEST

5 notes · View notes

gcldcnhour · 1 year

Text

like this for a starter from one of these muses!

demarko houston - luka sabbat

harpie johnson - jasmin savoy brown

rose zhu - gemma chan

carmen ortiz - michael cimino

priya devi - amita suman

anastasia ‘stassi’ candler - juno temple

richard 'richie’ porter - rory culkin

memphis nash - ayo edebiri

junia constance - hannah waddingham

linden jackson - ava capri

clement edwards - archie renaux

mathias olsen - george mackay

tate clemmons - nico hiraga

ziggy jain - josh hueston

#wanted plots #indie rp #indie bi rp #starter call

5 notes · View notes

athoshq · 2 years

Photo

The following characters have been accepted into Athos! Please get your account ready and send it into the main within twenty-four hours - if you need more time, let the admin team know and we will grant you an extension. We are excited to have you here and we can’t wait to see your characters in action!

Fox as Declan Shimada with the faceclaim of Darren Barnet

Fox as Baylor Harcourt with the faceclaim of Manu Rios

Wolfe as Blaise Ruggiari with the faceclaim of Frank Grillo

Wolfe as Omer Nardone with the faceclaim of Avan Jogia

Wolfe as Qorban Azuara with the faceclaim of Henry Golding

Jourth as Dimitri Langford with the faceclaim of Chris Zylka

Sean as Tobias Hinton with the faceclaim of Aaron Taylor Johnson

Ray as Linden Ruggiari with the faceclaim of David Harbour

Devil as Anthony Hale with the faceclaim of Ian Bohen

Devil as John Smith with the faceclaim of Peter Capaldi

Devil as Euclides Emery with the faceclaim of Gideon Emery

Jay as Tyr Andersen with the faceclaim of Stephen Amell

Jay as Ronyn Lamorent with the faceclaim of Casey Deidrick

Jay as Sven Martel with the faceclaim of Alexander Skarsgard

Sammy as Sage Kuusik with the faceclaim of Garrett Hedlund

#ahqaccepted

6 notes · View notes

dancing-mylife-away · 23 days

Text

august reads:

cobalt red: how the blood of the congo powers our lives by siddharth kara: 5 ⭐️

death at morning house by maureen johnson: 5⭐️

the magic of lemon drop pie by rachel linden: 4⭐️

the star-crossed sisters of tuscany by lori nelson spielman: 3 ⭐️

faithless by karin slaughter (grant county #5): 4.5 ⭐️

#the ratings are out of 5 stars #books #hannah's boring life #hannah reads books

1 note · View note

spoilertv · 2 months

Text

#SpoilerTV

0 notes

wankerwatch · 2 months

Text

Commons Vote

On: Finance (No. 2) Bill: Third Reading

Ayes: 215 (98.6% Con, 0.9% Ind, 0.5% DUP) Noes: 19 (94.7% SNP, 5.3% PC) Absent: ~416

Likely Referenced Bill: Finance (No. 2) Act 2010

Description: A Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.

Originating house: Commons Current house: Unassigned Bill Stage: Royal Assent

Individual Votes:

Ayes

Conservative (211 votes)

Aaron Bell Alan Mak Alberto Costa Alec Shelbrooke Alex Burghart Alex Chalk Alicia Kearns Alok Sharma Amanda Milling Andrew Griffith Andrew Jones Andrew Lewer Andrew Murrison Andrew Percy Andrew Selous Andy Carter Angela Richardson Anna Firth Anne Marie Morris Anne-Marie Trevelyan Anthony Browne Antony Higginbotham Ben Everitt Ben Spencer Ben Wallace Bernard Jenkin Bill Wiggin Bim Afolami Bob Blackman Bob Seely Brandon Lewis Caroline Ansell Caroline Nokes Charles Walker Cherilyn Mackrory Chris Clarkson Chris Grayling Chris Green Chris Philp Conor Burns Craig Tracey Craig Williams Damian Hinds Daniel Kawczynski Danny Kruger David Davis David Duguid David Jones David Rutley David Simmonds Dean Russell Dehenna Davison Derek Thomas Desmond Swayne Duncan Baker Edward Argar Edward Leigh Elizabeth Truss Elliot Colburn Esther McVey Felicity Buchan Fiona Bruce Gagan Mohindra Gareth Bacon Gareth Davies Gareth Johnson Gary Sambrook Gavin Williamson Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Gillian Keegan Graham Brady Graham Stuart Greg Hands Greg Smith Guy Opperman Harriett Baldwin Heather Wheeler Helen Whately Holly Mumby-Croft Huw Merriman Iain Duncan Smith Iain Stewart Jack Brereton Jack Lopresti Jackie Doyle-Price Jacob Rees-Mogg Jacob Young James Cartlidge James Cleverly James Davies James Duddridge James Sunderland James Wild Jane Hunt Jane Stevenson Jeremy Quin Jerome Mayhew Jo Churchill John Glen John Howell John Lamont Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Gullis Julia Lopez Julian Lewis Julian Smith Julian Sturdy Justin Tomlinson Katherine Fletcher Kelly Tolhurst Kemi Badenoch Kevin Hollinrake Kieran Mullan Kit Malthouse Laura Farris Laura Trott Lee Rowley Leo Docherty Lia Nici Liam Fox Lisa Cameron Louie French Lucy Frazer Luke Hall Marcus Jones Mark Fletcher Mark Francois Mark Garnier Mark Logan Martin Vickers Matt Hancock Matt Warman Matthew Offord Mel Stride Michael Ellis Michael Fabricant Michael Gove Michael Tomlinson Mike Freer Mike Wood Mims Davies Neil O'Brien Nick Fletcher Nick Gibb Nicola Richards Nigel Huddleston Paul Beresford Paul Holmes Paul Howell Pauline Latham Penny Mordaunt Peter Aldous Peter Bottomley Philip Dunne Philip Hollobone Priti Patel Ranil Jayawardena Rebecca Harris Rebecca Pow Rehman Chishti Richard Bacon Richard Drax Richard Fuller Rob Butler Robbie Moore Robert Buckland Robert Courts Robert Goodwill Robert Halfon Robert Largan Robert Syms Robin Millar Robin Walker Royston Smith Sajid Javid Sally-Ann Hart Saqib Bhatti Sara Britcliffe Sarah Dines Scott Mann Selaine Saxby Shailesh Vara Sheryll Murray Simon Baynes Simon Clarke Simon Fell Simon Hart Simon Hoare Simon Jupp Stephen Metcalfe Steve Baker Steve Brine Steve Tuckwell Stuart Andrew Suzanne Webb Theo Clarke Theresa May Theresa Villiers Thérèse Coffey Tobias Ellwood Tom Hunt Tom Pursglove Tom Randall Tom Tugendhat Tracey Crouch Vicky Ford Victoria Atkins Victoria Prentis Wendy Morton Will Quince William Cash

Independent (2 votes)

Mark Menzies William Wragg

Democratic Unionist Party (1 vote)

Jim Shannon

Noes

Scottish National Party (18 votes)

Allan Dorans Amy Callaghan Angela Crawley Anne McLaughlin Brendan O'Hara Chris Law Chris Stephens David Linden Deidre Brock Joanna Cherry John Nicolson Kirsty Blackman Marion Fellows Owen Thompson Peter Grant Philippa Whitford Richard Thomson Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Plaid Cymru (1 vote)

Hywel Williams

#uk gov #uk politics #uk parliament #politics #vote #wankerwatch #backdating

1 note · View note

vintagetvstars · 2 months

Text

CLOSED! Preliminary Hot Vintage TV Men List

Alright folks! We have one week left on submissions for the Hot Vintage TV Men's Bracket! As promised here is a list of all the Hot Vintage TV Men who have been submitted and passed our preliminary eligibility checks. There are a handful of guys on this list and one or two not on it that we are currently still debating on so reminder that this list is not final and subject to change.

Currently we have 231 Hot Vintage TV Men!

Also in advance of the competition I'd like to remind anyone submitting propaganda for someone that starred in a show that aired only partially during our timeframe or was under 18 for a part of a shows filming, to please make sure you are only submitting propaganda that is from within our timeframe and when the actor was 18 years or older. This is also just good to keep in mind in general as several people submitted actors for shows that aren't eligible for our tournament either because it was outside our time period or in one case the actor was underaged for the entirety of the show (though many were eligible for other shows they were submitted for). We do our best to screen for these things but sometimes it's hard to tell or it’s a show we don't personally know well enough so we appreciate help from y'all letting us know if you do catch anything.

List below the cut

Preliminary Hot Vintage TV Men List

Dick Van Dyke

Alan Alda

Hugh Laurie

Peter Falk

Adam West

Donnie Wahlberg

Kevin McDonald

Scott Thompson

David Duchovny

Henry Winkler

Leonard Nimoy

Scott Bakula

James Garner

Tom Selleck

Dave Foley

John Astin

Joe Lando

Patrick Troughton

William Shatner

DeForest Kelley

Michael Ontkean

Russell Johnson

Kyle MacLachlan

Bruce McCulloch

William Hopper

George Clooney

Jeffrey Combs

Michael Horse

Mark McKinney

Jensen Ackles

Alejandro Rey

Mitch Pileggi

David Cassidy

Jeremy Brett

Anthony Head

George Takei

David Selby

Rod Serling

Paul Gross

Desi Arnaz

Tom Baker

Richard Dean Anderson

David Keith McCallum

Richard Chamberlain

Charles Shaughnessy

David James Elliot

Vincent Van Patten

Darren E. Burrows

David Hyde Pierce

Randolph Mantooth

Ricardo Montalban

Gene Anthony Ray

William Hartnell

Patrick McGoohan

René Auberjonois

Alexander Siddig

Reece Shearsmith

Michael T. Weiss

William Shockley

Spencer Rochfort

Danny John-Jules

David Hasselhoff

Conner Trinneer

Patrick Stewart

Jonathan Frakes

Paolo Montalban

Scott Patterson

Armin Shimerman

Anthony Andrews

David Schwimmer

Blair Underwood

Sylvester McCoy

Andrew Robinson

Pierce Brosnan

Thorsten Kaye

Anthony Starke

Darren McGavin

Clint Eastwood

Joseph Marcell

Michael Vartan

Richard Ayoade

George Maharis

Michael J. Fox

Dwayne Hickman

John de Lancie

Andre Braugher

Robert Carlyle

Dean Stockwell

Matthew Perry

Robert Fuller

Michael Hurst

Dana Ashbrook

Jonathan Frid

Dirk Benedict

Martin Milner

Demond Wilson

Robert Conrad

Telly Savalas

Peter Davison

Michael Praed

Jason Bateman

David Tennant

Brian Blessed

Miguel Ferrer

Micky Dolenz

Wayne Rogers

Mike Farrell

Michael Dorn

Cesar Romero

Eddie Albert

Nate Richert

Nicholas Lea

Brent Spiner

Dick Gautier

John Corbett

Jeremy Irons

David Suchet

Raymond Burr

LeVar Burton

David Wenham

Clint Walker

Larry Hagman

John Goodman

Matt LeBlanc

Tom Smothers

Erik Estrada

Jeremy Sisto

Colm Meaney

Stephen Fry

Ted Bessell

Ron Perlman

Luke Halpin

Ted Cassidy

Kevin Sorbo

John Cleese

Colin Firth

Colin Baker

Fred Rogers

Ben Browder

Keir Dullea

Randy Boone

Kent McCord

Jimmy Smits

Mark Lenard

Jon Pertwee

Fred Grandy

Mark Hamill

Ted Danson

Adam Brody

Noah Wiley

Eric Close

Lee Majors

Jamie Farr

Tony Danza

Kabir Bedi

Seth Green

Rik Mayall

Hal Linden

Diego Luna

Peter Tork

Sean Bean

Sam Neill

Eric Idle

Ted Lange

John Shea

Ron Glass

Tony Dow

Mr. T

John Hurt

Avery Brooks

Billy Dee Williams

James Marsters

Robert Vaughn

Kevin Smith

Davy Jones

Luke Perry

Robert Duncan McNeill

Simon MacCorkindale

Keith Hamilton Cobb

Chad Michael Murray

James Earl Jones

Bruce Boxleitner

Timothy Olyphant

Andreas Katsulas

Valentine Pelka

Peter Wingfield

Sebastian Cabot

Michael Nesmith

Timothy Dalton

Michael Shanks

Joshua Jackson

Michael O’Hare

Robert Beltran

Simon Williams

Paul Johannson

Daniel Dae Kim

David Boreanaz

Boris Karloff

Robert Wagner

Brandon Quinn

Walter Koenig

Richard Hatch

Christian Kane

Francis Capra

Nathan Fillion

John Forsythe

Patrick Duffy

Tony Shalhoub

Ioan Gruffudd

Garrett Wang

Joe Flanigan

Rider Strong

Michael Tylo

Bruce Willis

Skeet Ulrich

Jeff Conaway

Paul McGann

Scott Cohen

Mario Lopez

Martin Kove

John Stamos

Judd Hirsch

Johnny Depp

Tom Welling

Matt Bomer

Grant show

David Soul

Bob Crane

Tim Russ

Rob Lowe

Neil Patrick Harris

#vintage tv stars poll #breaking news #todays news

37 notes · View notes

molsons112000 · 5 months

Text

You have to have different emission standards for the city. Then you do for the roll areas and the suburban areas because you have more trees more open space, less traffic in the city. You have to have even higher emission standards. City of Chicago de vehicles have to reach a much higher emission standard in the City of Chicago so they can only drive and buy clean fuel.... So it's illegal, so if you're coming from the suburbs and that you have to BUY gas in the city, so you have to buy so much gas in the city. The mix with your existing gasoline that's cleaner. The cut down your admissions so it forces you to buy gas from city gas stations because you need a lower level of pollution from the vehicles. So you have to buy a certain fuel and it should be in California. They only sell it as a seasonal that higher emission. Or cleaner field, that's all you're around. They do it wrong in California. Only the summer dry. It should be all year around like in Arizona. That higher than ultra clean gasoline that should be just standard all year around.....

So the City of Chicago, you can only drive clean fuel. So 2 stroke engines need to use cleaner fuel and also in 2 strokes. You have to use oil that doesn't burn. Yes, you can't use oil that Burns easy. 2 stroke is for lubrication. Cause you don't have a oil chamber. That's separate, so you mix gas and chill. But the oil has to be heavier. So it doesn't burn so the oil stays in and you don't have to constantly add oil to your 2 stroke. Because the oil is not burning off. The oil stays there as a lubricant, and so you have this higher velocity. Oil that doesn't burn and so that way. You reduce any emissions from 2 stroke motors? And then you put with it the cleaner gasoline, so the oil's not burning, so you don't have to worry about the fumes or turnoil. It's almost nothing and then you have the cleaner gasoline. And not 2 stroke engines become highly clean. So they have to have emission standards that are much higher for the vehicles in Chicago.Much much higher and vehicles entering the City of Chicago.To enter a vehicle into the city of chicago you must have higher emission standards or your vehicle's not allowed into the city... Because most of the pollution it does get trapped and people here are killing themselves...

J f k put us in vietnam.... He did it to stop the progression of communism... But the thing is when he got killed.It was very good for the communist... You know the military action he did with the cuban missile crisis. Well, getting rid of JFK and having knowing who's going to take over as Vice President had no military experience Lyndon B. Johnson.

Was Lyndon Johnson ever in the military?

During World War II he served briefly in the Navy as a lieutenant commander, winning a Silver Star in the South Pacific. After six terms in the House, Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1948.

https://www.whitehouse.gov › lyn...

Lyndon B. Johnson | The White House

Linden b Johnson was not the same as JFK was in there for a longer period of time was an active commander and one metty many metals.

For his courage and leadership, Kennedy was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, and injuries suffered during the incident also qualified him for a Purple Heart. Ensign Leonard Thom also received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal.

https://www.jfklibrary.org › learn

John F. Kennedy and PT 109 | JFK Library

ARSOF History

https://arsof-history.org › articles

“Another Type of Warfare”: JFK's Address to the West Point Class ...

On 6 June 1962, U.S. President John F. Kennedy (JFK) gave the commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York.

Missing: let ‎| Show results with: let

JFK Library

https://www.jfklibrary.org › archives

Remarks at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland ...

Listen to the speech. View related documents. President John F. Kennedy Annapolis, Maryland August 1, 1963.

So you'd better pick a Vice President that can lead the country and has all the ability to be President. The point is you learn and Lyndon.B Johnson was not as competent as JFK and the war in Vietnam. He wasn't capable of handling it correctly... He did have some good generals, but it was handled incorrectly. He needed to invade cambodia... They were launching their jets not out of north vietnam but out of cambodia...

We should have set up a base on the border of Cambodia, preventing them from leaving North Vietnam and from coming in from Cambodia.We screwed up also in the green war The ability to drop in troopers and go behind the lines cutting off the supply from china to north korea and again we did not... We could have pinned in the North Korean army and stopped the Chinese from supporting the North Koreans.We failed to do it and we had more than the might to take the position and hold the position.... But we allowed them to go back in the China.Do r n r we supply and then again launch operations out of china back into korea... We did the same thing with cambodia and vietnam... George Bush did it right.He told pakistan if bin laden and the taliban cross over in the pakistan our troops will follow... The President of Pakistan agreed that the u.S military could follow across the border.And continue to go after and seek and kill the taliban... George bush threatened him.... And the one thing Obama did to get Ben Laden.He went into Pakistan.He invaded pakistan and they have nuclear weapons... But the thing is was he ready to take out their nukes... And believe me I guarantee you that he didn't have things in the air to take out their bunkers if they open the doors to their nukes... We got lucky.They stand down but he was lucky because of the agreement that george bush created with the president of pakistan... So the president of pakistan already agreed that we could go after the taliban in pakistan... So that's why the Pakistan, the government didn't respond now.He was having problems with hard liners.And he was his inside his government.People didn't want u s troops on pakistan soil... But they had their agreement and so when obama went in the agreement stood and pakistan didn't retaliate for invading their country and we did invade their country.

On February 22, 1969, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) launched an offensive against American forces in South Vietnam from their bases in Cambodia. The North Vietnamese used Cambodia's ports and roads to supply materiel for their war effort in South Vietnam with the permission of the Cambodian government, which was considered neutral.

Air Force Museum

Hitting Sanctuaries: Cambodia > National Museum of the United ...

Moreover, the North Vietnamese, with permission of the "neutral" Cambodian government, used Cambodian ports and roads to supply large amounts of materiel for the communist war effort in South Vietnam. Through the 1960s, military experts (including ex-President Dwight Eisenhower) called for large-scale offensives ...

en.wikipedia.org

Cambodian campaign - Wikipedia

The objective of the campaign was the defeat of the approximately 40,000 troops of the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and the Viet Cong (VC) in the eastern border regions of Cambodia. Cambodian neutrality and military weakness made its territory a safe zone where PAVN/VC forces could establish bases for operations over the border. With the US shifting toward a policy of Vietnamization and withdrawal, it sought to shore up the South Vietnamese government by eliminating the cross-border threat.

Scientific Research Publishing

Review and Analysis: United States Secret Wars in Cambodia

On February 22, 1969, the PAVN launched a new offensive against American forces in South Vietnam from their sanctuaries in Cambodia. President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger, decided to spray and bomb Cambodia, a neutral country, to eliminate the PAVN sanctuary base camps. The damage and loss of life as a result of U.S. air campaign resulted in the insurgency (Khmer Rouge) being able to recruit civilian members. This created a dual effect of strengthening the popularity of the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, enabling him to overthrow the Khmer Republic in 1975.

In response, President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger ordered a bombing and spraying campaign of Cambodia to eliminate the PAVN's sanctuary bases. Between March 1969 and May 1970,

B-52

bombers

flew 3,875 missions against targets in Cambodia, but the missions were secretly redirected in flight to targets in Cambodia. The bombing campaign is still cited as an example of American war crimes and was a mobilizing issue for the antiwar movement.

Cambodia's military weakness and neutrality made it a safe zone for the PAVN to establish bases for operations over the border. The US sought to eliminate the cross-border threat to shore up the South Vietnamese government.

In 1978, Vietnam retaliated to a series of Khmer Rouge attacks on Vietnamese border provinces by invading Cambodia, removing the Khmer Rouge from power. The Vietnamese occupation lasted for ten years, but was a disaster.

But I guarantee you obama was not prepared correctly.... So people in the United States don't understand how much great risk he put us at and then terrorism took off under his administration, 8 years and all those terrorists got stronger and stronger and stronger.They rebuilt they were degraded by george bush and rebuilt under obama .. That's why having consistency in policy when you go in the doctrine says you never come out you maintain... But we cause ourselves all kinds of problems pulling out of north korea pulling out of vietnam... Once we went in pulling back to South Korea.He should have pushed all the way through.North korea pushed the chinese back in the china... And if there was any time to go to war against China we had nuclear weapons.They had no nuclear weapons.MacArthur was right.We push him back and if we need to invade China, it's the perfect time to invade China.We had all the military built up from World War 2.We had unbelievable amounts of military hardware highly trained personnel the chinese didn't... And Patton was right after the end of World War 2.We should have took on and wiped out russia..... But they didn't want to hurt for a longer war.So they gave him all of Eastern Europe.That caused us to be under constant threat.Patton understood that if we wipe them out now they don't have the nukes we have the nukes we have all the strategic advantage and we can take down russia now.. So waiting is not an option.... Is waiting get your enemy stronger....

0 notes