Allen Ginsberg, not Alan Ginsberg.

Most importantly, it was an (almost) drug free era of individual responsibility, hard work, hope and optimism. We were a "land of opportunity", not a country of "rights".

Hey Lars, even more "importantly," it was an era of repression of women, denial of basic civil rights to anyone who wasn't white, Big Tobacco and Big Liquor addicting a whole generation and condemning them to far more misery and death than the "drugs of the 60s" have ever done. It was the grand era of Eisenhower, the era of closed minds and open discrimination.

Lars apparently lived in a bubble during the 50's or wasn't there. It was a time of happiness and optimism for him and other like-minded individuals because the people who were being repressed also had learned to keep their mouths shut (with a few notable exceptions). The 60's only exposed what had been going on underneath the surface for decades and decades.

I will try again to post my opinion & some facts, but at this point I am not to optimistic about seeing it posted, the many that have not made it past my typing it. Oh well, it's other's losses, not mine, 'cause I KNOW the facts & just try to share them. Here goes: There is NO WAY anyone has ever been able to send any thing as far as the sun to revolve around it! HA HA HA! What a joke. Thank you for at least letting me type it here, even if no one else will see it, I know you did. :):):)

Theliberla HAtmongers may diagree,

but LARS is RIGHT,

while there WERE some problems,

with how women were accepted in education and the workplace,

adn civil rights, primarily in the southeast, MOST of the rest country fairly accepting and well... civil.


So liberals can continue to HATE the fifties based some TV show they watched.

but if you CHOOSE NOT TO BE IGNORANT AND HATEFUL,

then you KNOW there was far much more good than problems.

Oh, Bill. What he meant was that Lunik was the first artificial satellite of the Sun.

Sounds like you have a persecution complex. I've noticed that about 10% of my letters don't get published. I can distinguish nothing unique in the content of those letters, so I don't think content was the issue. In fact, many times I have reposted with the exact wording and it has been been published. I think it's just a systemic error or oversight. Don't take it personally...or do, I guess, if you must.

Wrong 1963 was the year of change. Here in Minnesota we have a car show named "Back to the 50s" which attracts over 10,000 cars (the largest of its kind.
No car newer than 1963 is allowed. Someone was thinking. The 50s lasted to 1963. In 1963 we had Kennedy's assination, the War in Vietnam, the huge Civil Rights demonstation in Washington and to top it all the Beatles. Everything changed after that in 1964:urban riots, war demonstrations, liberal legislation sucesses, the sexual revoltion (yes the pill came earlier but real was not used widely until the mid 60s)and the cars (they all lost their distinctiveness) and of course the music. In spite of segregation sexism etc.The 50s were the golden years: no Columbines, mothers stayed at home, we did more talking about sex than doing it, what sex there was confined to back seats of 57 Chevrolets, etc. Yes there have been great improvements in medical care, transportation improvements in opportunites for minorities that we do not want to give up. But are we on balance better off? To bad we cannot have the good things of today and keep the best of yesteryear

Mormons have a connection to D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" that they may not realize.

Yes, the book found its way into court, but it was almost 30 years EARLIER!

Time Magazine (Mar. 31,1930) reported that Utah's tall, leathery-faced Mormon Senator and Apostle from Utah, Reed Smoot, brought to court “Lady Chatterley's Lover,” George Moore's “Story Teller's Holiday,” Frank Harris's “My Life and Loves,” Honore de Balzac's “Droll Tales,” the Kama Sutra, Robert Burns', “unexpurgated Poems,” Joseph Moncure March's “The Wild Party,” and Casanova's Memoirs.

Appalled at the prospect of a flood of dirty foreign literature washing up on clean U. S. shores, Senator Smoot spent his Christmas holiday poring over improper paragraphs to amass arguments for the retention of censorship. His threat to read aloud blush-provoking passages, if necessary, helped to pack the Senate galleries.

(continued)

After twelve hours' fervent debate the Senate did reverse its position, did reimpose Customs censorship. Senator Smoot, happy that censorship had been restored, felt that the country had been saved.

Almost 30 years later, Smoot's zealous achievement was finally overturned.

Thus, it is not untrue to say that 1959 marked an escape from the censorship of hypocritical Mormonism, which still had the blush of polygamy on its face, but was zealous to censor the reading materials of the entire country!

God bless 1959.

Smoot shouted: "[such books] are lower than the beasts! ... If I were a Customs inspector, this obscene literature would only be admitted over my dead body. ... If a Customs inspector, with his knowledge of the world, regards a book as obscene, it is about the nearest approach to a jury trial that can be had. ... I'd rather have a child of mine use opium than read these books. I'd rather keep out a thousand than have one mistake made.”

Senator Cutting charged that by publicizing his objections to Lady Chatterley's Lover, Senator Smoot had made it a "classic." His insinuations brought Smoot to his feet in a rage:

"I resent the statement the Senator has just made that Lady Chatterley's Lover is my favorite book! . . . I have not read it. It was so disgusting, so dirty and vile that the reading of one page was enough for me. . I've not taken ten minutes on Lady Chatterley's Lover, outside of looking at its opening pages. It is most damnable! It is written by a man with a diseased mind and a soul so black that he would obscure even the darkness of hell!"

This artical Mr. Cannon, like many of your articles presents a sub-text critical of birth control, while never addressing the subject directly. I wonder if you see no benefits to providing women the ability to plan and have additional control concerning the major emotional, physical, and financial responsibilities of bearing children. I recall a column addressing the fears of population growth which mainly focused on small rich western economies, without a discussion on the effects of population growth in the third world. I see in these articles, a line of thought that leads the same direction as many of your others that mention birth control specifically. I know that the LDS church has no statements specifically prohibiting birth control, despite a call to “multiply and replenish the earth”. So why Mr. Cannon, do you seem to have such a problem with the pill? Do you feel that it separates sex from its physical consequences? If so why is this bad thing? Is it an affront to Gods authority? I hope one day you will address these questions directly instead of letting them hang over so many of your articles.