🚀 go-pugleaf

OK. Let me draw you a map.

Those CU students who rioted in Boulder are not likely
to be liberals due to their socioeconomic bracket and
other factors of political socialization.  Those who rioted in Denver were
likely socialized through living in a lower socioeconomic bracket, through
being denied unalienable rights
due to institutionalized racism, and other factors.  It is also
possible that their political philosophy is identifiable 
as the CU students.  

However, a really bizarre similarity occurred in these
two separate events.  The two groups cited it as being
"their right" to engage in the behaviors that they did.
A good social scientist will get interested quickly when
he or she sees such a consistent generalization spring
up out of two different events, and will start looking
empirically into what factors are present that may have
led to that generalization.

My original statement was that the elementary and 
secondary education each of these young people received
is a part of their political socialization.  Because they
share a similar age demographic (empirical observation #1), 
their educational process started approximately 3 - 6 years before the
conservative revolution of 1981 (empirical 
observation #2).

During that time the political ideology expressed by the members of many
school boards appears to have shifted decidedly to the right, with those
boards succeeding, in part, in implementing
some conservative reforms in the education process (More
of a prejudicial observation, but seems sound: Empirical
observation #3?).  

Thus those shifts to a more conservative curriculum may
have had some influence on the demographics 
political socialization (hypothesis inferred from empirical observation).

Various empirical factors are involved in one's political socialization. 
That socialization is then articulation in one's
view of the world: how one sees him or herself in relation to the rest of
existence (empirical observation #4).

One's world view is articulated in one's beliefs, thoughts,
and actions (empirical observation #5).  

That world view continues to be influenced by socializing
factors throughout one's life, so the process of socialization
is never really over until one dies (empirical observation and
assumption that there is no life after death).  

(Grand Inferred Hypothesis)

The world view articulated by these two seemingly
separate groups share a stunning similarity: they had the
"right" to do what they were doing on Cinco de Mayo weekend.

It is a fact that they all attended elementary and secondary
schools at the same time.

The school boards shifted to the political right, during that
same time.

School boards succeeded in implementing some conservative
reforms during that time.

Thus, the common world view expressed by those two groups
was in part formed by the conservative reforms that took
place in school curriculum during that period.


That's where I'm coming from.  Now, if I had the time
and money, I'd develop a Research Design and actually
do the study, but I don't.  

So what I'm trying to say is social indoctrination
swings both ways.  Liberalism cannot forever remain
society's bogeyman when other factors are now present
in society.  The old arguments don't fully explain current
reality.  The underlying socioeconomic and sociopolitical
factors may have shifted, and it's simply taking us time
to catch up to it in our paradigms.  

And, if I'm going to throw out another inferential hypothesis,
we may have begun to see the paradigm shifting in the UK,
this past week, with the drubbing of the Tories.  The 
Conservatives have lost all of their seats in Scotland and Wales.
They lost over 170 seats.  That's a shift to be taken seriously.
And the last time such a shift took place in the UK, it was 
followed by a similar shift in the US.  First Thatcher, then
Reagan.  Is that about to happen again?

Finally, regarding Colorado Springs (which is in El Paso
County).  I am saying they appear to be having some
very disturbing problems down there, though they may
not be in the CU Colo Springs kids.  The problems 
appear, instead, to be with the conservatives who have
commandeered the El Paso County Republican Party
in order to deny citizens of the community (and the state
through representatives like Rep. Charles Duke) its
unalienable and constitutional rights. (I apologize to real conservatives
when I call these folks "conservative."  They
appear much farther to the right, and seem to fit right 
into Hitler's praise of intolerant groups who feel they
have sole possession of the 'truth,' and are going to shove
their agenda down the throat no matter what.  

To me that's a far bigger problem than anything that
happened in Boulder, and maybe equivalent to what
happened in Denver, considering someone died in a 
shooting.

Bob

Andrew Blasciak <andy@col.hp.com> wrote in article
<5kqos3$di7$1@nonews.col.hp.com>...
> : And for Mr. Blasciak who offered that
> : "Boulder" was bastion of liberalism, are you
> : actually trying to tell me those CU kiddies who 
> : drive them Beemers and demand the drinking of alcohol
> : as a civil right, the ones who rioted to demand equal
> : beer protection under the law, are also out working in soup kitchens
and
> : marching to demand social and constitutional
> : parody for those traditionally denied them?  Hmmmmm?  
> 
>  Where DID I say this ???
>    
> : Mr. B, do you want to know what lovers of civil liberties
> : you gots down in El Paso County?  Just tell me about the
> : oath of conservatism the El Paso County Republican party
> : made its board take in order to BE a member of the board?
> : Then shall we talk about those neato folks at Colorado
> : for Family Values and Focus on the Family who continue
> : to promote Hitler's greatest hope, towit:
> 
> : 	"The future of a movement is conditioned by the
> : 	fanaticism, yes, the intolerance with which its
> : 	adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement,
> : 	and push it past other formations of a similar sort."
> : 		- Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
> 
>    If you are trying to offend me you are succeding.
> 
>   This is what I said (reprinted below). It is an observation just as
>   what you said is an observation. I am willing to
>   debate these observations. However, if you wish to insult
>   and place word in my mouth this conversation is over.
> 
>   "  One can hardly call Boulder "Conservative". Denver is also
>        Liberal. Now, in C. Springs which is Conservative, have you
> 	  seen any problems ?? "
>