Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Another fascinating discussion is the identification of Chinese as
"Jews of the East." Chua quotes Thailand's King Vajiravudh (son of
the King portrayed in Roger's and Hammerstein's "The King and I"):

Originally Posted by Amy Chua p 181 quoting King Vajiravudh

> In Siam ... there exists a situation analogous to the Jewish
> question in countries of the West. This is "The Yellow Peril."
> The danger arises solely from the Chinese from whom the Siamese
> are even more different than Europeans are from the Jews. The
> first similarity between Chinese and Jews is in the matter of
> "racial loyalty." No matter where they live, what nationality
> they assume, Chinese remain essentially Chinese. But theirs is
> race loyalty, not love of country....

I would have liked to see this discussed further, because there's an
enormous difference between the Jews and the Chinese: the Chinese
have a homeland, while the Jewish religion has evolved as a
Diaspora-only religion over two millennia.

However, Chua does highlight the importance of Chinese hegemony in
Southeast Asia. Americans tend to assume that everything, for good
or ill, happens because of decisions made in Washington, but Chua's
discussion makes it clear that it's China, for good or ill, that's
calling all the shots in Southeast Asia.

Unquote.

The way Chua depicts the USA is actually fairly similar to how China is described here. Americans are described as a market dominant minority (and militarily dominant as well)-with a homeland-but on a global scale.

(~*~)

Of course, the king's characterization of Jews was not accurate in any case. In wars between the European states during the 18th and 19th century, and even before, Jews fought on all sides of the conflicts, serving in the armies of their nation-states. This was so, even though Jews often did not have the rights of citizens in the nations in which they lived and for which they fought.

The king's statement shows ignorance and racism towards the Jews as well as towards the Chinese. Amy Chua took some pains to point this out.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Another fascinating discussion is the identification of Chinese as
"Jews of the East." Chua quotes Thailand's King Vajiravudh (son of
the King portrayed in Roger's and Hammerstein's "The King and I"):

Originally Posted by Amy Chua p 181 quoting King Vajiravudh

> In Siam ... there exists a situation analogous to the Jewish
> question in countries of the West. This is "The Yellow Peril."
> The danger arises solely from the Chinese from whom the Siamese
> are even more different than Europeans are from the Jews. The
> first similarity between Chinese and Jews is in the matter of
> "racial loyalty." No matter where they live, what nationality
> they assume, Chinese remain essentially Chinese. But theirs is
> race loyalty, not love of country....

I would have liked to see this discussed further, because there's an
enormous difference between the Jews and the Chinese: the Chinese
have a homeland, while the Jewish religion has evolved as a
Diaspora-only religion over two millennia.

However, Chua does highlight the importance of Chinese hegemony in
Southeast Asia. Americans tend to assume that everything, for good
or ill, happens because of decisions made in Washington, but Chua's
discussion makes it clear that it's China, for good or ill, that's
calling all the shots in Southeast Asia.

Unquote.

The way Chua depicts the USA is actually fairly similar to how China is described here. Americans are described as a market dominant minority (and militarily dominant as well)-with a homeland-but on a global scale.

(~*~)

Of course, the king's characterization of Jews was not accurate in any case. In wars between the European states during the 18th and 19th century, and even before, Jews fought on all sides of the conflicts, serving in the armies of their nation-states. This was so, even though Jews often did not have the rights of citizens in the nations in which they lived and for which they fought.

The king's statement shows ignorance and racism towards the Jews as well as towards the Chinese. Amy Chua took some pains to point this out.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Sean Love

> Perhaps you could contact her?

I'll send her a copy of my book. I've been trying to decide what
kind of cover letter to include -- short and sweet, or a detailed
examination of the relationship between her book and mine. I guess
I've decided on the latter, though she may end up thinking I'm just a
nut.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Tim,

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

> Smart idea, but it doesn't fit into neo-imperialism.

I agree that this kind of triage is not likely to be pursued, but I
believe that trying to do too much will be America's greatest danger.

In World War II, we kept out of it for a long time, and that's one
reason why we came out so well. This time, we may well be the first
ones in there, especially if the clash of civilizations begins in the
Mideast. This is very ominous.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

> When George & Meredith Friedman wrote this book they considered a
> novel Tokyo/New Delhi axis.

I'm not familiar with kind of relationship that Japan and India have
had since WW II, although they've both become American allies. My
uninformed guess is that Japan would not like to get involved in the
Kashmir problem, and India would not want to get involved in the
Korean reunification problem, and so India and Japan would be likely
to want to keep each other at a distance.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> A quick google search picked up the following page on the Yale Law
> school web site. If you'd care to step into a room with her, I'll
> bring a lock.

You raise a number of interesting points. As I mentioned, I'm going
to send her a copy of my book, and in the cover letter I'll request a
meeting with her. (Yale is about a 1.5 hour drive from me.)
However, I'm not optimistic. Look at how hard it is for those of us
in this forum to discuss the issues, and we all at least have a
common baseline; in her case, I'll be writing to her and presenting
her with something completely new. She'll probably just discard it
as the weird output of the unwashed masses.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Elisheva,

Originally Posted by elilevin

> I disagree with you that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic divide in
> Israel is going to be a major fault-line in an upcoming mid-east
> war. Unlike Chua's other descriptions of market dominant
> minorities, this "divide" is not very great. For one thing, the
> Ashkenazim do not see themselves as fundamentally separate or
> different than the Sephardim and vice versa.

Almost everything I know about this issue is from the 2 1/2 pages
that Chua spends on it (215-17), so when I said that the Ashkenazi and
Sephardic divide may be a fault line in the next war, I was making
that statement based on the fairly intense information provided by
Chua.

So are you saying that this is an error in Chua's presentation? Did
she make a mistake here, a misreading of the situation? And if so,
does that mean that she's wrong about other things as well?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear John,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by elilevin

> I disagree with you that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic divide in
> Israel is going to be a major fault-line in an upcoming mid-east
> war. Unlike Chua's other descriptions of market dominant
> minorities, this "divide" is not very great. For one thing, the
> Ashkenazim do not see themselves as fundamentally separate or
> different than the Sephardim and vice versa.

Almost everything I know about this issue is from the 2 1/2 pages
that Chua spends on it (215-17), so when I said that the Ashkenazi and
Sephardic divide may be a fault line in the next war, I was making
that statement based on the fairly intense information provided by
Chua.

So are you saying that this is an error in Chua's presentation? Did
she make a mistake here, a misreading of the situation? And if so,
does that mean that she's wrong about other things as well?

Is Amy Chua wrong about this? I don't have the book at hand but I remember her stating somewhere in those pages that the Ashkenzi-Sephardi differences are different than other situations with market dominant minorities.

Having said that, I think that she has not spent much time in Israel. In my experience there, the fault line is more likely to be between the ultra-orthodox minority and the secular majority. This is where the real bitterness lies and it is the undue influence of the very religious on government that stymies any attempt by Labor to deal justly with the settlements.

When I was there about two years ago, the settlers were holding rallies in which they held up signs with pictures of Yitsak Rabin and a legend that said: "Chaver, it's all your fault!" The ultraorthodox support the settlements along with the settlers (who are mostly also very religious) and these two groups oppose the secular majority. There is real fear that when Palestine is finally launched as a separate state and there is peace between Arabs and Israelis, then there will a civil war over the issues I discussed in the last post and this. :shock:

:cry: A truly sad day in America, folks.

The stock market just reached it's highest mark since June, 2001.

Not since that day in 1954, when the market finally topped the previous
1929 high has there been a sadder day, I should think. :cry:

Originally Posted by oy

:cry: A truly sad day in America, folks.

The stock market just reached it's highest mark since June, 2001.

Not since that day in 1954, when the market finally topped the previous
1929 high has there been a sadder day, I should think. :cry:

We are still down 26% from the all-time high set on my 41st birthday. We have a long way to go yet. I am still optimistic of further rise over the next 6-14 months.

I just read through the article Virgil posted on age being the dividing fault line in the upcoming crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Originally Posted by David J. Rothkopf

The fault-line issue of our time is about something deeper than belief or allegiance: It is about need. And because the needs of the young in the developing world and of the increasingly aged populations of developed nations are at once so urgent and so divergent, the clash of civilizations makes for issues that transcend culture and cross civilizations, uniting some and dividing others.

Demography is, in fact, destiny: Half the people in the world today are under 24. Of these, nearly nine out of 10 live in the developing world. A billion of them will need jobs in the next decade -- 60 percent of them are in Asia, 15 percent are in Africa. For them, the choices are simple: dignity or desperation, a job or starvation.

On the surface, this is another 'my perspective on the world is right, Huntington is wrong' article. As people might expect from me, I find the age perspective is worthy. Instead of rejecting a new perspective in favor of clinging to an older one, I would include the new factor at the expense of making my own model that much more complex.

Using Toffler's "Waves" model, I've been saying all along modern agriculture forces populations off the land into urban and suburban areas. Thus, the hopes for autocratic governments attempting to cling to Agricultural Age value systems are bleak. Cultures change when they move off the land. Finding jobs for all those new city dwellers is going to have a significant impact on any culture, even assuming there are sufficient jobs to go around. Modern medicine combined with Agricultural Age culture's need for large families exaggerates the problem.

This forum is dedicated to the 'cycles of history' model. We've recently been discussing Amy Chua's 'market dominant minority' model which puts the fault line on a combination of class and ethnic issues. We're all familiar with Huntington's 'clash of civilizations.' I pitch in from time to time with the notion that crisis are society's way of adapting to changing technology, as factions wishing to exploit new ways of making a living seize power from establishment factions.

And none of the models are wrong. If you mush em all together, four score and seven years after the prior big crisis, you would expect young poor populations, in border nations between major "core states" of civilizations, forced off the land by new agricultural methods, are rising up against older wealthier ethnic minorities from a nearby civilization. The "Core States" are generally big and wealthy enough that the potential explosions are yet hidden. Russia has its Islamic south. India too has Islam on its borders and within. The United States has September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq. All have economic problems bubbling.

The question is not which of the various models is correct. In one world trouble spot, the problem one model focuses on might be more acute than the next model's problem, but each model in its own simplistic way is striving to describe the same complex reality. You fit Rothkopf in by noting the freedom fighters backing one of Huntington's civilizations or Chua's oppressed ethnic minorities are young and poor. You acknowledge the importance of Rothkoph's observations by considering whether the ethnic / religious / class / civilization issues are going to go away without including the impoverished youth in a plausible economy. All these models reflect real parts of the same complex problem. The question would be how much energy should go into solving the problems emphasized by one model over the other.

The young v. old perspective also starts pulling ecology in. In many parts of the world, population is growing while resources remain limited and technology requires less labor to exploit the resources. While we can get diverted by various struggles -- between ethnic groups, between young and old, between civilizations, between political ideologies, between religions -- the base problem may be too many people, not enough resources to make them all happy, and not enough jobs required to distribute the resources.

The 'solution' pushed by the western establishment is a combination of capitalism and democracy. I'm not going to denounce either system. Again, to paraphrase Churchill, both are the worst systems ever devised by man, excepting only everything else that has been tried. I've certainly no magic bullet replacement system. Still, we might have taken the consumer mentality too far. From a capitalist / democratic perspective, a basic paradigm is that everyone is competitively seeking a larger piece of the pie. Each individual, or each corporation, is seeking to maximize profits, to maximize income, which translates into using a maximum amount of resources. If there are sufficient resources to go around, this works. At some point, one might wish to bow to Malthus, take a look at total resources available, and balance them out against those seeking to use these resources.

Let's step back to the Enlightenment model, and the self evident principle that men have inalienable rights. Let me propose that a right to a job with a living wage might be among these rights. Let me propose too that a 'right' is not granted by God, Allah, Natural Law or Enlightenment philosophers. Rights are something that a government dare not deny its people, lest they rise and destroy said government. Let us also propose that many governments do not have an infinite supply of living wage jobs available, thus the perceived inalienable right to participate in a healthy economy is a prescription for trouble. The primary means for a government to continue existence would be to find someone other than the government to blame for its people's suffering. Chua, Huntington, and Rothkopf provide plausible alternate sources of blame.

Malthus might be at the core of the trouble. If one is young, poor and without hope, and sees someone of a different ethnic, religious, civilization,age, culture, class or whatever, one is going to resent and hate. The prime difference between Chua, Huntington, and Rothkopf might be which excuse the have nots use for hating those that have. The common theme uniting the three might be Malthus. Are there enough resources to satisfy all? If so, we can talk about, legislate or fight over redistribution from those who have more than sufficient to those who have not enough. If there are not enough resources, then ultimately we have to consider limiting population.

Or we can count on nature. When a species over populates, the stronger breeding groups cull the weaker. With weapons of mass destruction, lack of resources might easily not be a problem by the end of the crisis.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Malthus might be at the core of the trouble. If one is young, poor and without hope, and sees someone of a different ethnic, religious, civilization,age, culture, class or whatever, one is going to resent and hate. The prime difference between Chua, Huntington, and Rothkopf might be which excuse the have nots use for hating those that have. The common theme uniting the three might be Malthus. Are there enough resources to satisfy all? If so, we can talk about, legislate or fight over redistribution from those who have more than sufficient to those who have not enough. If there are not enough resources, then ultimately we have to consider limiting population.

Or we can count on nature. When a species over populates, the stronger breeding groups cull the weaker. With weapons of mass destruction, lack of resources might easily not be a problem by the end of the crisis.

Exactly what I have been thinking for some time! And if the Malthusian Model is the heart and core of the upcoming 4T, then we have every reason to expect that genocide will be a major element during the 4T, along with other means, not all of which will be under human control, of reducing human numbers to roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of the current UN estimates for 2025. And I do expect that the 'haves' will be pretty high on the genocide target list. However, should the 'haves' at least partially survive this, it would be by dishing it out as ferociously as the 'have-nots' can be expected to.

Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> This forum is dedicated to the 'cycles of history' model. We've
> recently been discussing Amy Chua's 'market dominant minority'
> model which puts the fault line on a combination of class and
> ethnic issues. We're all familiar with Huntington's 'clash of
> civilizations.' I pitch in from time to time with the notion that
> crisis are society's way of adapting to changing technology, as
> factions wishing to exploit new ways of making a living seize
> power from establishment factions.

> And none of the models are wrong. If you mush em all together,
> four score and seven years after the prior big crisis, you would
> expect young poor populations, in border nations between major
> "core states" of civilizations, forced off the land by new
> agricultural methods, are rising up against older wealthier ethnic
> minorities from a nearby civilization. The "Core States" are
> generally big and wealthy enough that the potential explosions are
> yet hidden. Russia has its Islamic south. India too has Islam on
> its borders and within. The United States has September 11th,
> Afghanistan and Iraq. All have economic problems bubbling.

I agree with everything you say here, but I think it's worthwhile to
point out that the generational methodology (the "cycles of history"
model) is in a class by itself, distinct from all the others.

Huntington, Chua, et al, have models that describe the causes
of war, while the generational methodology describes the
timing of wars, or at least of major crisis wars.

So we can argue about the causes of the American Civil War, but those
causes were the same in 1830, 1860, and 1890. What was so special
about 1860? It was 75 years after the start of the Revolutionary
War.

So it's worthwhile to "mush together" all the various models and
theories about the causes of war, but generational dynamics still
stands on its own as a unique methodology for explaining and
predicting the timing of war.

One final note on the Rothkopf article: I get the feeling that he has
no idea what Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is all about,
since Huntington blames the coming clash of civilizations
on a "youth bulge" in all the Muslim countries. So when he says that
Huntington "had it wrong," and then he goes on to say the same thing
Huntington says, Rothkopf makes it appear that he's not the brightest
bulb in the press.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

One final note on the Rothkopf article: I get the feeling that he has
no idea what Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is all about,
since Huntington blames the coming clash of civilizations
on a "youth bulge" in all the Muslim countries. So when he says that
Huntington "had it wrong," and then he goes on to say the same thing
Huntington says, Rothkopf makes it appear that he's not the brightest
bulb in the press.

John

I'd missed that one. It has been a while since I read "Clash." I tend to pick up several points from a given author, and space out others, or forget which points I pick up from which author. Tis a hazard, I think. One can never get into someone else's perspective as well as one can get into one's own.

But more people seem to dislike Huntington's theories than have read his book. One is more apt to read his critics than encounter a solid presentation of what he is actually saying. One of the points I took out of his book is that the larger 'core states' during the 1990s were persistently taking the side of the faction in any given third world trouble spot that is most closely tied ethnically, linguistically and religiously with the core state. The exception came late in the Balkans debacle. When Saudi Arabia started talking about getting together a peace keeping force to defend muslim victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, then NATO finally decided they had best get involved in protecting muslims. NATO may have been more interested in preventing an Islamic force from coming to Europe than preventing the ethnic cleansing or genocide...

The Core States do not have to favor their ethnic kin. If the Core States got together, agreed on some principles, and acted, say, for human rights, or to protect territorial integrity, or whatever guidelines seem appropriate, the escalations described by Huntington which are very real and which did take place could have been avoided. Still, Huntington is quite correct that one should assume the core states will end up acting based on racist principles rather than principles of morality, justice, fairness, or anything similar. Whenever one of Chua's market dominant minorities squares off against a impoverished majority, the West is apt to support the faction that is more caucasian or Christian. While the Western peoples do not set out to elect racist politicians, or demand racist policies, refugees do migrate to the core countries, vote, then write their congressmen with less than neutral accounts of what is going on in their homelands.

I just wish I didn't believe Huntington's persistent assumption that because the core states have always acted favored their ethnic kin in civilization border conflicts, they always will act act in a racist fashion, thus the Clash he predicts becomes inevitable. From a generational perspective, major policies shifts are possible in Crisis. Moral principles are set forth and enforced. No taxation without representation. Free the slaves. Just because the UN or similar organizations have not enforced human rights equitably in the past, does not mean the principles written in the UN Charter and various international treaties never will be enforced. Until Bush 43 went into unilateral preemptive mode, an international consensus towards a uniform intervention policy seemed possible. We were heading in that direction. I was not quite as pessimistic as Huntington.

Now I'm less sure. Before the Crisis is over, assuming a successful resolution, I expect a consensus on how and when the international community must intervene should a genocide, famine, ethnic cleansing or similar grotesque mass violation of human rights start. The pattern was getting pretty steady during the Clinton years. We'll now have to see how far apart the world will have to get, before it comes together again.

Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> The Core States do not have to favor their ethnic kin. If the
> Core States got together, agreed on some principles, and acted,
> say, for human rights, or to protect territorial integrity, or
> whatever guidelines seem appropriate, the escalations described by
> Huntington which are very real and which did take place could have
> been avoided.

As I've previously said, I'm much more fatalistic than you are. I
don't believe that the core states can act in any such rational way
in a crisis war. In the Balkans, the Orthodox Russians had to
support the Orthodox Serbs, just as much as we had to support England
in the Falklands war, or we'll have to support Israel in a Mideast
war. It's like saying that if your wife is having a fight with the
neighbors, then you have to side with your wife whether she's right
or wrong.

I don't believe that anything could have been done to stop the
genocide in the Balkans or in Rwanda in the 1990s. When we finally
intervened in the Balkans, both sides were almost already at a point
of exhaustion anyway. If we'd tried to interfere earlier, we just
would have ended up being part of the larger war.

> Still, Huntington is quite correct that one should assume the
> core states will end up acting based on racist principles rather
> than principles of morality, justice, fairness, or anything
> similar.

I don't think that the word "racist" applies, or at least that it
applies to one side more than another. Were we being racist when we
dropped nuclear weapons on Japan? I'm sure that some people think we
were, but we also wanted to end the war.

> Whenever one of Chua's market dominant minorities squares off
> against a impoverished majority, the West is apt to support the
> faction that is more caucasian or Christian. While the Western
> peoples do not set out to elect racist politicians, or demand
> racist policies, refugees do migrate to the core countries, vote,
> then write their congressmen with less than neutral accounts of
> what is going on in their homelands.

I guess this is true, but it's human nature, and will never change.

I think that it's important to remember that genocidal war is an
unavoidable requirement for survival, because the population grows
exponentially faster than the food supply, both regionally and
worldwide. So morality has nothing to do with it. A nation, an
ethnic group, a religious group, must be willing to commit genocidal
warfare to survive.

> Now I'm less sure. Before the Crisis is over, assuming a
> successful resolution, I expect a consensus on how and when the
> international community must intervene should a genocide, famine,
> ethnic cleansing or similar grotesque mass violation of human
> rights start. The pattern was getting pretty steady during the
> Clinton years. We'll now have to see how far apart the world will
> have to get, before it comes together again.

This is always true after all the mass murders, genocides, rapes and
ethnic cleansing are done with. The Thirty Years War ended with the
Peace at Westphalia, the War of Spanish Succession ended with the
Treaty at Utrecht, the Napoleonic wars ended with the Congress at
Vienna, World War I created the League of Nations, World War II
created the United Nations, and so forth. In each case, the objective
was to prevent anything so horrible from ever happening again, but it
always does, roughly 80 years later.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Some have even suggested that the industrial-scale human sacrifices performed by the Aztecs (and other peoples) were a response to Malthusian conditions in MesoAmerica (now southern Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador) during the 200 years prior to the Spanish Conquest - as was the particularly savage warfare between the Greek city-states prior to the rise of Alexander the Great, who's conquests finally gave the Hellenic world a sufficient outlet to relieve the pressure. Like John Xenakis, I am becoming increasingly fatalistic about what's coming, and for many of the same reasons. However, I don't worry about supercomputers getting us a century from now, as he does, because I tend to think that the coming 4T may well be severe enough to prevent the development of said supercomputers (can you say 'new Age of Barbarism', aka 'new Dark Age'?)

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Some have even suggested that the industrial-scale human sacrifices performed by the Aztecs (and other peoples) were a response to Malthusian conditions in MesoAmerica (now southern Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador) during the 200 years prior to the Spanish Conquest - as was the particularly savage warfare between the Greek city-states prior to the rise of Alexander the Great, who's conquests finally gave the Hellenic world a sufficient outlet to relieve the pressure. Like John Xenakis, I am becoming increasingly fatalistic about what's coming, and for many of the same reasons. However, I don't worry about supercomputers getting us a century from now, as he does, because I tend to think that the coming 4T may well be severe enough to prevent the development of said supercomputers (can you say 'new Age of Barbarism', aka 'new Dark Age'?)

All 4Ts seem "too severe" in the 3T and early in the 4T. To many people, many of the looming secular problems seem insurmountable, although I think the solutions themselves are pretty simple (it's just a matter of will-power).

At the cusp of the Glorious Revolution, the secular problems of society likely seemed insurmountable. After King Philips War and Bacon's Rebellion, the looming problems of more Indian Wars, rebellions, and an emerging British despotism likely seemed insurmountable.

Same with the American Revolution. Really, how do you think people perceived the events of the era? Winning a war against the most powerful empire on Earth? Impossible! How about the confederalization, and eventually unionization of 13 colonies into a nation? Can't be done. And what about a secular government based upon the Age of Reason, modeled off of the Roman Empire? Yeah, that will only happen when people learn how to fly.

The elimination of the slaveocracy seemed insurmountable during the 1850s, as did the problem of a disunited United States, and the problem of what the economic driver of the nation would be with the elimination of slavery.

The prior 4T also seemed pretty insurmountable. Did anyone really think in 1932 that the nation would survive intact without a fascist or communist revolution at best? Or what about the creation of a massive social safety net? Or, in 1940, with the economy still in shambles, how about a war against Italy, Germany, and Japan, who seemed on the verge of winning, having already solved their own problems related to the Depression, with England nearing defeat, and the possibility of a Stalin-Hitler alliance? Yeah, when man walks on the moon, right? The early 1930s was a mood of despair. Many people probably thought that they were witnessing the end of civilization.

Really, the problems we face are not impossible to solve, not by a long shot. In reality, we've had the know-how since the 1970s. Even in the 1970s, there were proposed, and potentially workable solutions to overpopulation, environmental destruction, while at the same time raising everyone's standard of living. And this was with old, 1970s science and technology. The real issue (as many have stated) is not whether or not we CAN solve the problems, but rather if we are WILLING to do it. Many paths do lead to a Dark Age, but there are many paths to an era of unprecedented luminosity. That is where the 4T comes in. During the 1950s, people denied that there were ANY problems. During the 1970s, people found threatening problems everywhere. During the 1990s, even as many people forwarded solutions to problems, most people assumed that the problems were insurmountable. But during the 2010s, people will be working hard to overcome these challenges.

Madscientist, you're may be right about global civilization solving the problems of the upcoming 4T, assuming two things:

One, the total death toll doesn't go much above 1/3 of all Humanity. I get that from the fact that Medieval European civilization survived losses of similar proportions from the Bubonic Plague pandemic of the late 1340s, and the survivors actually enjoyed a higher individual standard of living afterwards.

Two, hopefully you're not including America's continued existence as one of the problems that has to be solved at all costs.

Originally Posted by madscientist

many people, many of the looming secular problems seem insurmountable, although I think the solutions themselves are pretty simple (it's just a matter of will-power).

They don't even need much will power. This crisis has just about the easiest problems ever faced.

John

I don't often get involved in point by point rebuttals, but your last post seems worthy of an exception.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> The Core States do not have to favor their ethnic kin. If the
> Core States got together, agreed on some principles, and acted,
> say, for human rights, or to protect territorial integrity, or
> whatever guidelines seem appropriate, the escalations described by
> Huntington which are very real and which did take place could have
> been avoided.

As I've previously said, I'm much more fatalistic than you are. I
don't believe that the core states can act in any such rational way
in a crisis war. In the Balkans, the Orthodox Russians had to
support the Orthodox Serbs, just as much as we had to support England
in the Falklands war, or we'll have to support Israel in a Mideast
war. It's like saying that if your wife is having a fight with the
neighbors, then you have to side with your wife whether she's right
or wrong.

I don't believe that anything could have been done to stop the
genocide in the Balkans or in Rwanda in the 1990s. When we finally
intervened in the Balkans, both sides were almost already at a point
of exhaustion anyway. If we'd tried to interfere earlier, we just
would have ended up being part of the larger war.

We could afford 'my ethnic group, right or wrong' chauvinistic racism before weapons of mass destruction became quite so easy to produce. Again, one of the key phrases for the upcoming crisis is 'terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction.' The yardsticks for measuring the intensity of crisis conflict are Atlanta 1865 and Berlin 1945. The conservative forces will not back off a perceived right to commit injustice short of that level of destruction, nor will the progressive faction tolerate continued injustice. The conservative forces will not admit a problem can be solved, nor will the progressive faction let it remain unsolved.

Changing technology, in this case weapons technology, must be adjusted to by the society.

We can't afford fatalism. Fatalism would be fatal. The good news is that society does change to an extent the conservatives believe impossible. The bad news is that it takes a lot of destruction before anyone will take the radical firebrands seriously.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Still, Huntington is quite correct that one should assume the
> core states will end up acting based on racist principles rather
> than principles of morality, justice, fairness, or anything
> similar.

I don't think that the word "racist" applies, or at least that it
applies to one side more than another. Were we being racist when we
dropped nuclear weapons on Japan? I'm sure that some people think we
were, but we also wanted to end the war.

Look in the mirror while declaring the word 'racist' doesn't apply. OK. Maybe I'm deliberately playing Sam Adams or William Lloyd Garrison style pre 4T radical firebrand here, but let me just say that putting one's race ahead of justice, and asserting any other behavior is impossible, is the sort of conservative position that makes firebrand radicals think in terms of Apocalypse. Radical firebrands will insist on representation as a requirement for taxation, insist on an end to slavery, and insist on silencing those that proclaim blatantly racist foreign policies are inevitable.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Whenever one of Chua's market dominant minorities squares off
> against a impoverished majority, the West is apt to support the
> faction that is more caucasian or Christian. While the Western
> peoples do not set out to elect racist politicians, or demand
> racist policies, refugees do migrate to the core countries, vote,
> then write their congressmen with less than neutral accounts of
> what is going on in their homelands.

I guess this is true, but it's human nature, and will never change.

I think that it's important to remember that genocidal war is an
unavoidable requirement for survival, because the population grows
exponentially faster than the food supply, both regionally and
worldwide. So morality has nothing to do with it. A nation, an
ethnic group, a religious group, must be willing to commit genocidal
warfare to survive.

Human nature does change in crisis. Some injustices are so large that they can only be addressed at time of crisis, and with crisis as the cost of transition, but they can be addressed.

I do believe Malthusian issues are underlying the crisis. The solution to the crisis will involve Malthusian budgeting of resources available to consumers at hand. Still, we are not at the point of a forced Malthusian collapse. Food supply exceeds demand. With genetic science posed to go critical, the ability to feed the current population is there in the short term of decades, if not the long term of centuries. It is economics and inequitable distribution that is causing the current problems.

Next crisis, four score and seven years down stream, if we don't address population control now, and I don't really expect we will in the next few decades, another story. At the moment, however, Malthus is a second string player, not the driving factor.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Now I'm less sure. Before the Crisis is over, assuming a
> successful resolution, I expect a consensus on how and when the
> international community must intervene should a genocide, famine,
> ethnic cleansing or similar grotesque mass violation of human
> rights start. The pattern was getting pretty steady during the
> Clinton years. We'll now have to see how far apart the world will
> have to get, before it comes together again.

This is always true after all the mass murders, genocides, rapes and
ethnic cleansing are done with. The Thirty Years War ended with the
Peace at Westphalia, the War of Spanish Succession ended with the
Treaty at Utrecht, the Napoleonic wars ended with the Congress at
Vienna, World War I created the League of Nations, World War II
created the United Nations, and so forth. In each case, the objective
was to prevent anything so horrible from ever happening again, but it
always does, roughly 80 years later.

And yet, progress is made. The Inquisition is no longer burning witches. Slaves are no longer in chains. World War I, World War II and the Cold War each saw a major form of autocratic government fade significantly, Royal, Fascist and Communist respectively. Democracy is coming off the defensive. In prior struggles, the democracy was seen as the underdog. The autocrats perceived themselves as representing absolute right and often progress. Now, the autocrats are in disarray. There are remnant royalties, military dictators, and communist parties. None of them seem posed to force their way of life down the West's throats. Rather, they are looking to take as much of the West's economic prosperity as they can while letting go as little autocratic power as possible. History suggests this is a losing approach.

I do anticipate another grand council at the end of the crisis. Much the same human rights and territorial guarantees will be made as after World War II, but thresholds of what will not be tolerated will be set, and mechanisms for enforcement will be defined. States will be less sovereign. A failure to protect said human rights will void national sovereignty. Failed states will lose their charters to govern.

Will peace for all time be established? I doubt it. As I noted earlier, I don't expect at the next crisis / high cusp, a global government with the ability to establish limits of population that do not exceed resources available. This isn't Malthus's crisis. Next time around.

But don't underestimate culture's ability to transform itself.

Dear Titus,

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

> Like John Xenakis, I am becoming increasingly fatalistic about
> what's coming, and for many of the same reasons.

Welcome to the club.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

> However, I don't worry about supercomputers getting us a century
> from now, as he does, because I tend to think that the coming 4T
> may well be severe enough to prevent the development of said
> supercomputers (can you say 'new Age of Barbarism', aka 'new Dark
> Age'?)

You're referring here to the lengthy discussion in the

Eschatology - The End of the Human Race by 2100? thread.

Unless the sun explodes, there is no chance that technological
development will be impeded by another war. In fact, technological
development wasn't impeded during the Dark Ages either.

I would estimate that there are many hundreds of research centers
around the world working to develop super-intelligent computers.
Because of the importance of technology to any war effort, these
research centers will be given the highest financial priority and the
highest security during a new world war. I would expect most of them
to survive, but if even only 10% of them survived, that would be
enough to continue development of super-intelligent computers.

As I've said in other places, by 2030 I expect there'll be autonomous
computers that are more intelligent than human beings. They'll be
performing all sorts of chores for humans, and they'll part of every
war. What will happen after that is anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

> One, the total death toll doesn't go much above 1/3 of all
> Humanity. I get that from the fact that Medieval European
> civilization survived losses of similar proportions from the
> Bubonic Plague pandemic of the late 1340s, and the survivors
> actually enjoyed a higher individual standard of living
> afterwards.

This makes a lot of sense. With 1/3 of the population gone, the
other 2/3 gets to share essentially the same amount of food and other
resources that the entire population previously had to share, so
everyone gets more stuff.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Robert,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> The conservative forces will not back off a perceived right to
> commit injustice short of that level of destruction, nor will the
> progressive faction tolerate continued injustice. The conservative
> forces will not admit a problem can be solved, nor will the
> progressive faction let it remain unsolved.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you making a political point
here with your reference to "conservative forces" and "progressive
faction"? The reason this confuses me is because I see all this
stuff as completely independent of politics. The only leader in the
world's history to have used a nuclear weapon on someone was
President Truman, a Democrat. And I've argued in another thread that
if Al Gore were President, he would have invaded Iraq too. Whatever
is going to happen is going to happen irrespective of who is elected
in November.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Changing technology, in this case weapons technology, must be
> adjusted to by the society.

I don't understand this sentence.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> We can't afford fatalism. Fatalism would be fatal.

Wait, hold on a second. I'd like to write that down.

Actually, I believe that the opposite is true. Fatalism means you're
prepared, and it's lack of preparation that would be fatal.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Look in the mirror while declaring the word 'racist' doesn't
> apply.

The word "racist" is highly politically loaded, which is why I'm
inclined not to use it. In America today, it usually refers to
race-based politics, especially between whites and blacks. I believe
that connotation is completely irrelevant to the "clash of
civilizations." In fact, there are white and black Westerners, and
there are white and black Muslims, so race is not the defining issue,
in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Human nature does change in crisis. Some injustices are so large
> that they can only be addressed at time of crisis, and with crisis
> as the cost of transition, but they can be addressed.

During a 4t crisis, people feel that their lives, their entire
nations, their way of life are all at stake. Human nature always
changes. When Roosevelt bombed Dresden, when Truman nuked Nagasaki,
the goal was to kill millions of civilians. It had nothing to do
with racism. It's what always happens in a crisis war. That's what
crisis wars are all about.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> I do believe Malthusian issues are underlying the crisis. The
> solution to the crisis will involve Malthusian budgeting of
> resources available to consumers at hand. Still, we are not at
> the point of a forced Malthusian collapse. Food supply exceeds
> demand.... Malthus is a second string player, not the driving
> factor

That may be true in America. That might even be true on a worldwide
basis. But it's not true regionally.

I'm really surprised to see you talking this way, because it seems to
contradict stuff you've previously written about market-dominant
minorities.

When the food supply is too small for the available population, it
doesn't automatically mean that everyone dies of starvation. What it
means is that the remaining food becomes more expensive, and so poor
people pay a day's wages for a bowl of rice, while the people in the
market-dominant minority eat all they want.

So "food" becomes a proxy for an entire range of resources, having to
do with shelter, security, lifestyle and entertainment. So when the
population grows faster than the food supply, it means that poor
people are deprived of not just food, but of everything else that
makes them poor people.

So yes, Malthus is indeed the driving factor today.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Slaves are no longer in chains.

I would guess that there's more slavery today than at any time in
history, even if there are no chains. Poor people who are desperate
to do anything to survive are just as much slaves as if they had
chains.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> And yet, progress is made. ... Democracy is coming off the
> defensive. In prior struggles, the democracy was seen as the
> underdog.

Progress is made because of technological advances. This is even
true with respect to democracy. As I've previously discussed, you
can show mathematically that democracy and free markets are the only
form of government that can survive as the population grows.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> I do anticipate another grand council at the end of the crisis.
> Much the same human rights and territorial guarantees will be made
> as after World War II, but thresholds of what will not be
> tolerated will be set, and mechanisms for enforcement will be
> defined. States will be less sovereign. A failure to protect said
> human rights will void national sovereignty. Failed states will
> lose their charters to govern.

Technology will play a big part. We already have computerized data
bases that keep track of every time we take the Turnpike, every time
we buy anything, every time we drive through a yellow light, and so
forth. By 2020, technology will be used much more extensively to
prevent terrorism and enforce boundaries.

However, a new "United Nations" won't work any better than the last
one did.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> Will peace for all time be established? I doubt it.

By 2030, super-intelligent autonomous computers will be more
intelligent than human beings. By 2050 or 2060, they'll be as much
more intelligent than humans as humans are more intelligent than cats
and dogs. What that means for the future is anyone's guess.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Okay, Kerry is invoking the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Is that archetypal or what? If a direct comparison is to be made (which I am not making, only an indirect one) then we would certainly be very late 3T and pre-Cascade, unless you consider Bleeding Kansas or Dred Scott (or the Panic of 1857 :wink: ) to be the trigger followed by a long transition.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|03-13-2004::10:06|reuters.html

**For Discussion Purposes Only**


Democrat Kerry Challenges Bush to Monthly Debates

Mar 13, 10:01 AM (ET)

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
BOSTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, visiting the site of one of the most famous political debates in U.S. history, planned to challenge President Bush on Saturday to a "real discussion about America's future" in a monthly series of debates.

Kerry, already engaged in a running exchange of negative ads with Bush eight months before the November election, planned to deliver the challenge at the site of the historic Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates in Quincy, Illinois.

That series of 1858 senatorial debates between Douglas and Lincoln, who lost the Senate election but won the presidency two years later, is legendary in U.S. political history for elevating crucial issues like slavery and states' rights to the front of the U.S. political agenda.

"Surely, if the attack ads can start now at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery in Quincy, Illinois, later on Saturday.

Bush and Kerry have exchanged negative ads in the past few days, with Bush criticizing Kerry by name for planning to raise taxes and threatening to weaken U.S. security and Kerry firing back at his "misleading" accusations.

Kerry challenged the Republican president to monthly debates on the "great issues" of the day, including the war on terrorism, the loss of U.S. jobs and the plight of Americans without health care.

"2004 can't be just another year of politics as usual," Kerry said in the text. "The challenges we face are just too grave and too great.

"We confront big issues -- as big as any in our history -- and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas."

Quincy was the site of the sixth of seven Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, with 20,000 people - double the town's population -- gathering to hear the two men, who shared a river steamer to their next debate.

"Maybe George Bush and I won't travel on the same boat or the same airplane, but we can give this country a campaign that genuinely addresses our real issues and treats voters with respect," Kerry said.

After the Quincy rally, Kerry planned to travel to Pennsylvania and Ohio on Sunday as he continues appearances in states with upcoming primaries, even though he has clinched the Democratic nomination.

After a brief vacation next week, Kerry will embark on a 20-city fund-raising tour at the end of the month to try to close the cash gap on Bush, who had $100 million more on hand at the end of January. Kerry has raised more than $10 million on the Internet since he effectively clinched the nomination on March 2.

Okay, Kerry is invoking the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Is that archetypal or what? If a direct comparison is to be made (which I am not making, only an indirect one) then we would certainly be very late 3T and pre-Cascade, unless you consider Bleeding Kansas or Dred Scott (or the Panic of 1857 :wink: ) to be the trigger followed by a long transition.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|03-13-2004::10:06|reuters.html

**For Discussion Purposes Only**


Democrat Kerry Challenges Bush to Monthly Debates

Mar 13, 10:01 AM (ET)

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
BOSTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, visiting the site of one of the most famous political debates in U.S. history, planned to challenge President Bush on Saturday to a "real discussion about America's future" in a monthly series of debates.

Kerry, already engaged in a running exchange of negative ads with Bush eight months before the November election, planned to deliver the challenge at the site of the historic Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates in Quincy, Illinois.

That series of 1858 senatorial debates between Douglas and Lincoln, who lost the Senate election but won the presidency two years later, is legendary in U.S. political history for elevating crucial issues like slavery and states' rights to the front of the U.S. political agenda.

"Surely, if the attack ads can start now at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery in Quincy, Illinois, later on Saturday.

Bush and Kerry have exchanged negative ads in the past few days, with Bush criticizing Kerry by name for planning to raise taxes and threatening to weaken U.S. security and Kerry firing back at his "misleading" accusations.

Kerry challenged the Republican president to monthly debates on the "great issues" of the day, including the war on terrorism, the loss of U.S. jobs and the plight of Americans without health care.

"2004 can't be just another year of politics as usual," Kerry said in the text. "The challenges we face are just too grave and too great.

"We confront big issues -- as big as any in our history -- and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas."

Quincy was the site of the sixth of seven Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, with 20,000 people - double the town's population -- gathering to hear the two men, who shared a river steamer to their next debate.

"Maybe George Bush and I won't travel on the same boat or the same airplane, but we can give this country a campaign that genuinely addresses our real issues and treats voters with respect," Kerry said.

After the Quincy rally, Kerry planned to travel to Pennsylvania and Ohio on Sunday as he continues appearances in states with upcoming primaries, even though he has clinched the Democratic nomination.

After a brief vacation next week, Kerry will embark on a 20-city fund-raising tour at the end of the month to try to close the cash gap on Bush, who had $100 million more on hand at the end of January. Kerry has raised more than $10 million on the Internet since he effectively clinched the nomination on March 2.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Okay, Kerry is invoking the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Is that archetypal or what? If a direct comparison is to be made (which I am not making, only an indirect one) then we would certainly be very late 3T and pre-Cascade, unless you consider Bleeding Kansas or Dred Scott (or the Panic of 1857 :wink: ) to be the trigger followed by a long transition.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|03-13-2004::10:06|reuters.html

**For Discussion Purposes Only**


Democrat Kerry Challenges Bush to Monthly Debates

Mar 13, 10:01 AM (ET)

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
BOSTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, visiting the site of one of the most famous political debates in U.S. history, planned to challenge President Bush on Saturday to a "real discussion about America's future" in a monthly series of debates.

Kerry, already engaged in a running exchange of negative ads with Bush eight months before the November election, planned to deliver the challenge at the site of the historic Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates in Quincy, Illinois.

That series of 1858 senatorial debates between Douglas and Lincoln, who lost the Senate election but won the presidency two years later, is legendary in U.S. political history for elevating crucial issues like slavery and states' rights to the front of the U.S. political agenda.

"Surely, if the attack ads can start now at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery in Quincy, Illinois, later on Saturday.

Bush and Kerry have exchanged negative ads in the past few days, with Bush criticizing Kerry by name for planning to raise taxes and threatening to weaken U.S. security and Kerry firing back at his "misleading" accusations.

Kerry challenged the Republican president to monthly debates on the "great issues" of the day, including the war on terrorism, the loss of U.S. jobs and the plight of Americans without health care.

"2004 can't be just another year of politics as usual," Kerry said in the text. "The challenges we face are just too grave and too great.

"We confront big issues -- as big as any in our history -- and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas."

Quincy was the site of the sixth of seven Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, with 20,000 people - double the town's population -- gathering to hear the two men, who shared a river steamer to their next debate.

"Maybe George Bush and I won't travel on the same boat or the same airplane, but we can give this country a campaign that genuinely addresses our real issues and treats voters with respect," Kerry said.

After the Quincy rally, Kerry planned to travel to Pennsylvania and Ohio on Sunday as he continues appearances in states with upcoming primaries, even though he has clinched the Democratic nomination.

After a brief vacation next week, Kerry will embark on a 20-city fund-raising tour at the end of the month to try to close the cash gap on Bush, who had $100 million more on hand at the end of January. Kerry has raised more than $10 million on the Internet since he effectively clinched the nomination on March 2.

Is this what America wants; or needs?

Hour upon hour of the voices of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush; both going into character assassination of the other, race-baiting, questioning the patriotism of the other as Douglas-Lincoln did?


I rather listen to the Castro-length orations of the S.W.O.T.E.'s husband or rappers rapping or even (((shudders))) polka music on the accordian than have Kerry-Bush 2004 berate each other in debate.

They engaged in 7 debates spread over a period of 7 weeks, from August
21, 1858 to October 15, 1858 in? these
Illinois cities: Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy,
and Alton. Attendance estimates ranged from a low of 1,500 in Jonesboro to a
high of? 20,000 in Galesburg. The
average was about 15,000 very vocal folks at each town. The format never varied. The first speaker spoke for one hour; his opponent for the next 1 ?
hrs; and then the ?starter finishing up
with a half hour. The speaking order was reversed at the next site. They went
at each other with biting humor, bitter sarcasms, and hellish fury, and the
topic, for the most part, was Slavery. They never discussed any of the other
issues of the day, tariffs, land grants, internal improvements, foreign policy,
or the growing needs of farm and factory communities. The focal point was
always slavery and the union. Neither really offered anything new. They had
been arguing their respective positions for years. Their differences were
clearly drawn and they argued them redundantly at each site on the debate
trail.

The debates are laced with humor, sarcasm, and metaphor by both
candidates. Lincoln at one point likened Douglas to a ?Cuttle fish? that ?has
no means of defense but throws out a little black fluid so that its enemies
cannot see it?. In another, Lincoln says of a Douglas argument that it is ?as
thin as the homeopathic soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that has starved to death?.?

Douglas often refers to Abe
as ?spotty Lincoln?, a sarcastic attempt to depict Lincoln, when he was a congressman,
as having been unpatriotic by not endorsing the declaration of war against
Mexico until he could be shown the exact spot where American blood had been shed.?

The Lincoln?Douglas Debates -? the First Complete Unexpurgated Text Reviewed by Mr. Patrick Fairbairn :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Okay, Kerry is invoking the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Is that archetypal or what? If a direct comparison is to be made (which I am not making, only an indirect one) then we would certainly be very late 3T and pre-Cascade, unless you consider Bleeding Kansas or Dred Scott (or the Panic of 1857 :wink: ) to be the trigger followed by a long transition.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|03-13-2004::10:06|reuters.html

**For Discussion Purposes Only**


Democrat Kerry Challenges Bush to Monthly Debates

Mar 13, 10:01 AM (ET)

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
BOSTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, visiting the site of one of the most famous political debates in U.S. history, planned to challenge President Bush on Saturday to a "real discussion about America's future" in a monthly series of debates.

Kerry, already engaged in a running exchange of negative ads with Bush eight months before the November election, planned to deliver the challenge at the site of the historic Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates in Quincy, Illinois.

That series of 1858 senatorial debates between Douglas and Lincoln, who lost the Senate election but won the presidency two years later, is legendary in U.S. political history for elevating crucial issues like slavery and states' rights to the front of the U.S. political agenda.

"Surely, if the attack ads can start now at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery in Quincy, Illinois, later on Saturday.

Bush and Kerry have exchanged negative ads in the past few days, with Bush criticizing Kerry by name for planning to raise taxes and threatening to weaken U.S. security and Kerry firing back at his "misleading" accusations.

Kerry challenged the Republican president to monthly debates on the "great issues" of the day, including the war on terrorism, the loss of U.S. jobs and the plight of Americans without health care.

"2004 can't be just another year of politics as usual," Kerry said in the text. "The challenges we face are just too grave and too great.

"We confront big issues -- as big as any in our history -- and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas."

Quincy was the site of the sixth of seven Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, with 20,000 people - double the town's population -- gathering to hear the two men, who shared a river steamer to their next debate.

"Maybe George Bush and I won't travel on the same boat or the same airplane, but we can give this country a campaign that genuinely addresses our real issues and treats voters with respect," Kerry said.

After the Quincy rally, Kerry planned to travel to Pennsylvania and Ohio on Sunday as he continues appearances in states with upcoming primaries, even though he has clinched the Democratic nomination.

After a brief vacation next week, Kerry will embark on a 20-city fund-raising tour at the end of the month to try to close the cash gap on Bush, who had $100 million more on hand at the end of January. Kerry has raised more than $10 million on the Internet since he effectively clinched the nomination on March 2.

Is this what America wants; or needs?

Hour upon hour of the voices of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush; both going into character assassination of the other, race-baiting, questioning the patriotism of the other as Douglas-Lincoln did?


I rather listen to the Castro-length orations of the S.W.O.T.E.'s husband or rappers rapping or even (((shudders))) polka music on the accordian than have Kerry-Bush 2004 berate each other in debate.

They engaged in 7 debates spread over a period of 7 weeks, from August
21, 1858 to October 15, 1858 in? these
Illinois cities: Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy,
and Alton. Attendance estimates ranged from a low of 1,500 in Jonesboro to a
high of? 20,000 in Galesburg. The
average was about 15,000 very vocal folks at each town. The format never varied. The first speaker spoke for one hour; his opponent for the next 1 ?
hrs; and then the ?starter finishing up
with a half hour. The speaking order was reversed at the next site. They went
at each other with biting humor, bitter sarcasms, and hellish fury, and the
topic, for the most part, was Slavery. They never discussed any of the other
issues of the day, tariffs, land grants, internal improvements, foreign policy,
or the growing needs of farm and factory communities. The focal point was
always slavery and the union. Neither really offered anything new. They had
been arguing their respective positions for years. Their differences were
clearly drawn and they argued them redundantly at each site on the debate
trail.

The debates are laced with humor, sarcasm, and metaphor by both
candidates. Lincoln at one point likened Douglas to a ?Cuttle fish? that ?has
no means of defense but throws out a little black fluid so that its enemies
cannot see it?. In another, Lincoln says of a Douglas argument that it is ?as
thin as the homeopathic soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that has starved to death?.?

Douglas often refers to Abe
as ?spotty Lincoln?, a sarcastic attempt to depict Lincoln, when he was a congressman,
as having been unpatriotic by not endorsing the declaration of war against
Mexico until he could be shown the exact spot where American blood had been shed.?

The Lincoln?Douglas Debates -? the First Complete Unexpurgated Text Reviewed by Mr. Patrick Fairbairn :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: