Is there a coherent way to create a Series group that these shows could be serialized or organized within?

The term Groupthink was originally coined by William Whyte of Fortune Magazine, in 1952. He defined it as a level of conformity that goes far beyond “normal” conformity to group norms. He described it as a “rationalized” conformity to an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. He said that when engaging in groupthink, members go along with what they believe is the consensus. Groupthink can cause groups to make irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. Irving Janis, of Yale, developed an extensive theory of groupthink. He described it as a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group and the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. He felt that highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The group isolates itself from outside experts and the closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion. Does this sound familiar?

Several political incidents of the 20th Century have been described as possible cases of groupthink. The one I see as most like what we are now dealing with, in terms of the level of dangerousness to the world, was the state of mind within the Kennedy Administration during the Bay of Pigs invasion. Although, in retrospect, it was clear to many that the plan was fatally flawed from the beginning, no one within the administration spoke out against the plan. Kennedy’s top group of advisers fit every one of the main causes of groupthink. They had all been educated in the country’s top universities, causing them to become a very cohesive group. They were also all afraid of speaking out against the plan, because they did not want to upset the president. The President’s brother, Robert Kennedy, took on the role of a mind guard, telling dissenters that it was a waste of their time, because the President had already made up his mind. [I borrow from Wikipedia here, so feel free to correct my facts]

A discussion of the Bush Administration policies and actions, in light of the idea of groupthink, might be enlightening.

http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~cs315/subpages/inline/Zax.html

XIV

The contemplation of things as they are, without substitution or imposture, without error or confusion, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention.

–Francis Bacon

That voice encourages me to argue that we should talk about Iraq endlessly. Until we do something about it. Most of us feel powerless. I wonder every day what I could do. I marched in anti-war rallies and that meant nothing. I did vote, but that doesn’t end the war. So, what, what can we do? We can talk everybody to a desperate desire to end this thing!

Whimsical, yes, but all we have to put up with is talks. Maybe we should have bomb sirens going off in every town and city in the US everytime there is any gunfire in Iraq.

What films are among the best of all times?

This isn’t a ‘top 20′ list, to qualify a movie must arguably be far above most films.

I would argue that ‘The Thin Red Line’ will be judged as one of the most intelligent

portrayals of betrayal, bravery, cowardice and honor. It’s also about the battle

for Guadalcanal, but that’s only the situation in which these themes are played out.

‘Memento’, would have to be among the best explanations of what we remember

and what we are based on what we remember of ourselves. It’s also one of

the best edited films of all time.

I assume that hot stories with news pegs get better ratings, and that you’re seeking funding, but you asked us what we wanted, so there it is.

If you want to touch in Iraq, let’s discuss why we didn’t learn anything from Vietnam, and whether we’re likely to have learned anything from Iraq when it’s all over.

The question, then, is whether the speech is really a “news peg” (a great term that I’d never heard before). Perhaps in an era when Presidential speeches contained new information, and when leaders had some credibility that justified our taking them at their words and caring about their reasoning, it would be. But we’ve known the substance of this speech for weeks now: 20,000 “more” troops(achieved by lengthening the tours of duty — way to support those troops), because we can “win,” and need to have “resolve,” etc. etc. etc. And we’ve already heard the opposing brief, too. So (with due respect, of course) the fact that Bush reads words written by someone else stating what we’ve known he would be stating for weeks using rhetoric we’ve been hearing for three years hardly strikes me as a compelling enough “peg.”

So I find it kind of ironic that we did 4 Iraq shows in a row but not one tomorrow when we will actually know the direction our country is taking. Ideally the “micromanage” show would have been the new cities show and we would have a “speech’ show tomorrow, but that’s just quibbling on my part.

I bring these things up In the interest of discussion. I’m sure I will enjoy that show tomorrow and I know I will enjoy every discussion I have at ROS. Thanks Sutter for provoking the discussion. Like I said, in principle I’m with ya 100 percent. I loves the Chelsea shows!