Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

(Continued from previous posting)

And ...

The fact that people who fail to march in lockstep with the party line
are villified in this forum means that it's impossible for a lot of
people to even come into to this forum. Why is this forum so
overwhelming Democratic -- something like 95%+? Don't Republicans
also read TFT? The answer is that they come into this forum, quickly
get the picture that they're not wanted, and either remain as lurkers
or leave.

You may be surprised to learn that there are several people in this
forum who have privately messaged me over the years thanking me for
my work. Why don't they post that in the forum? Because they're
afraid that they'll receive the same kind of offensive treatment that
I receive -- and we know how right that fear is.

I just wish that this forum had an active moderator. ... An active
moderator can make sure that everyone is treated fairly.

Under the present circumstances, the only people who can post in this
forum are (a) people who follow in lockstep with the party line, or
(b) people, like ... and me, who are prepared withstand the onslaught
of crap they receive when they don't follow the party line.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis

Dear Mr. Xenakis,

I took the intensity of your argument to be the issue of the shortness of the day's sunned path, the lateness of the hour, and the New England tradition of proximity to the products of the Triangular Trade.

That you see it a Manichaean struggle between the Democrat and the Republican does sadden. That the Crown of Creation so easily slips into the denial of variety when bile and solvents course through the veins is why I dislike Mr. Bush.

But, I did contemn Mr. Clinton who was quite rightly impeached and sadly not convicted. I thought Mr. Gore a loon who had an odd sense of fashion and his wife a labeller of aesthics way beyond her abilities as an art critic. It is their being of the Boomer Generation in the political world (which I have observed at remove and close at hand for nearly four decades) that makes me think the Crown of Creation totally unsuited for the governance of the lower order, or indeed, themselves.

We are quick to mount Not-Wars upon small nations and play the Austrian-born Corporal Card at the first instance of opposition. We think ourselves at Iwo Jima when we bomb the television studios of Belgrade or at the Bulge when the gardeners of Helmand are denied their plots. We think the instruction of the young is a matter of regimentation (from school uniformism to Leaving No Child Alone) which we found so shackling when we were so bound. We are quick to be both victim and master in the instant.

For all that I do not hate my fellow Boomers, I think their policies to be folly and their principless to be Churchillian (that is, as yet undiscovered). They (we) are worse than useless as actors in the political world. But, we are artful in many other fields.

As to the idea of an "active" moderator, I think this would only subject T4T to less variety. Would someone such as the Great Meece be allowed to argue from the planets if he were not already here? Would those others in the "weird" party, who would tell us the future even if we don't wish to know it for philosophical or religious or practical reasons (surely every forecast of the future ought to have a *SPOILER* alert) get past the Cliometrician in charge?

The Ignore Button is Your Friend, why have one moderator when each and everyone can do so? As to those who communicate privately and yet seem so afraid to publicly praise, have the Courage of Your Commendations! Mr. Xenakis not only needs your hugs but wants them to be noted by a wider world. Please do indulge him on this point!

It seems that Republicans* do read T4T, sadly many do not remain Republicans (though I think 95+% to be slightly less than 100% accurate).

Merry Christmas to you Mr. Xenakis and my best regard (if not always my highest) to your continued forecasts.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS




____

*Although I have voted for Republicans, Independent Republicans (so named in Minnesota after Watergate), and Republicans on the local level for decades and in Presidential Elections when Mr. Reagan led the ticket and Senatorial Elections when Mr. Boschwitz ran. I am a conservative
(r)epublican who doesn't care to encourage any Boomers at the ballot box and opts for GIs, Silents, or Xers, if that is possible on the larger stage.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The divorce system? I've heard many of the same horror stories myself. What's scariest about it is they could end up killing off the institution of marraige, with all that such implies, if when the dust settles most men are too afraid of ending up as indentured servants. OTOH, my own divorce went pretty smoothly. It cost me the princely sum of $500 in attorney's fees... no alimony, and no loss of half my assets, either. Signed off on July 25, 2002... by a female judge! I didn't even have to attend the "ceremony". So my thinking is that the whole opportunism thing is on the wane... gone the way of erstwhile million-dollar hot coffee lawsuits... which is what I would expect entering a Fourth Turning.

It occurs to me the entire divorce thing we're talking about may have been a transitional thing. When I was first married, the vast majority of married women were housewives, and in the late 1950s, the big divorce scandal was men divorcing their middle-aged wives to marry (or just chase) younger women. This threw them on a pink-collar labor market that paid very little and defined "over the hill" as "over 25." [Actually, "over the hill" has been defined as "pre-boomer" since I started working.]

I remember when the Office of Displaced Homemakers was a new and wonderful thing, and its purpose was to help these people [90% women because that's who caretakers generally were] get back into the labor market.

Fast-forward 40 years. Women, seeing what was happening, moved into the labor market and organized. Younger generations continued their careers come hell or high water. Many Boomer women became activists and lawyers *and their heads were still in the past.* Their attitudes and values were formed by *what had happened to their mothers*.

For a while the two systems were in sync, and then - as always when what people are doing moves faster than social institutions - we began to see what John has been complaining about. But that, too, is passing.

I could draw this thing as two overlapping bell curves if you like, but I don't have the skills to do so in this format.

At any rate, just my $0.02 from casual observation.

BTW - the rush to the labor market [*I* won't be left high and dry like my mother!] left their children more or less stranded, so we now get Xer moms staying home with their kids. And polemicists shouting about how we've destroyed the family. So - what's a mother to do? Have the federal government give her a stipend and a pension as they are said to do in Scandinavia?

When I was young and the femine was not yet a political program and woman was not yet in the main "economic woman" as she was soon to become in a shadow of the Romantic Idealism that would insert itself into the prophesying hearts and minds of the Crown of Creation as they Reformed the Institutions, the cultural conversion (an art taken up by Missionaries, the Lost, GIs, and the earlier Silents--abandoned for argument by the later Silents, my Generation, and the arlier Xers--and re-adopted by later Xers and Millennials) amongst men and amongst women and between those two involved the promotion of the virtues of the several groupings alone or in combination.

The first feminists were in the late 1960s making an assertion of the value and values of their kind. They pointed out the work of some unknown 13th Century French sculptor's S-curved Queen of Heaven carved and gilt. They wondered at the quality of Marie de France and the court of Aquitane.

They explained the accuracy of Madame de Lafayette and the wisdom of Edith Wharton. Whether white-gloved and at tea or leather aproned with cutting torch they were aware and proud of the variety they and their sisters had provided in the spheres of accomplishment.

That moment did not long remain as the gender wars and the cultural aggression of the Crown of Creation took hold and celebration was replaced by grievance. And, the grievance was a narrow one that revisited the doctrines of Mr. Marx as the proletarian placecard was remade with an engraved re-titling (for this was very much a creature of the children of the more privileged) and the spoiled could become able to play the victim card with as much dispatch as the heirs of slavery or those exotics of sexual expression.

With the exception of a few (the Canadian humorist, Margaret Atwood, for instance and Joan Didion) cant and rant, the chosen style of the Boomer at argument, replaced conversation. We are all tiring and conversation amongst men, amongst women, and between the two has again begun to be possible.

All those cries, all those tears, all those shouts! And, yet ,besides the place settings of Judy Chicago so little to extend to the coming generations of the Children of Men. Romantic idealism (even in a women's furrowed brow) will be found wanting as did the Berlin Wall. The women's wall has also been cracked by those within and those without. I wonder if they will sell fragements on e-bay when it becomes an historical curiosity and finally tumbles to ground?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've been
getting called "arrogant" and "impatient" and "condescending" in this
forum for years, by people WHO DISAGREED WITH ME. That's the
opposite of what you're saying. I first really saw this in a
discussion of the causes of the civil war. I was called "arrogant"
because of the certitude with which I stated my views. Why even
bother to call me "arrogant"? Just tell me I'm wrong and leave it at
that. Instead, these people attacked me personally because I didn't
agree with them.

Calling me "arrogant" is like telling me I'm a Boomer. Frankly, I'm
very proud of the work I've done with Generational Dynamics, and
believe that it will turn out to be significant. I think I have a
right to be arrogant about it. If I'm not willing to vigorously
fight for its validity and value, then who will?

All right. Point taken.

It was not my intention to offend you with this statement, but I
think you're right to feel offended because I unfairly personalized
this remark with the words "like Kiff," and I apologize for doing
that. I could have left those two words out and made the same point
without personalizing it.

Accepted.

But I don't apologize for the content of the statement. I made this
statement in the context of an argument about feminism we were
already having in a different thread. This statement was simply part
of that argument.

I understand.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So anyway, I made that posting for the point that feminism is
completely unprincipled. Feminist literature is full of stuff about
not believing women "victims" when they claim that they weren't
raped, battered, harassed, abused, etc., because that's part of the
whole fundraising thing. I knew very well that you wouldn't
disbelieve Jenny, since she's your friend and besides, there's no
fundraising involved. (I'm not saying that to be offensive; I'm just
making the point again that this stuff is all about fundraising for
feminists.)

John, haven't I made it clear that I don't subscribe to that philosophy? All I want is political equality, and for men and women to treat each other fairly in private as well as in public. That is what I've always believed that feminism was all about; thus, I will continue to call myself by that name. I will NEVER advocate for the kind of injustice that you have described -- and trust me, it is an injustice of the worst sort.

I do apologize for offending you, but there's one thing that you
can't or won't admit -- that this forum contains a real nasty streak
of people, centered mostly in your own Clique of friends, that's
extremely offensive to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

You have your own pat little set of Democratic Party beliefs, and
your own pat little set of feminist beliefs, and anyone who doesn't
agree is arrogant, condescending, cretinous and evil. And if we're to
judge by recent events then, as a woman, you're not afraid to play an
occasional game of "Let's you and him fight." (See paragraph #3 on
this page: http://www.ericberne.com/games/games...play_LYAHF.htm
)

I'm very familiar with Berne and TA and would like you to send me a private message about the incident to which you are referring.

And I'm not the only one. I disagree with a lot of what Marc says,
but I'm absolutely astounded by how offensively he's treated. He and
I are in similar situations, as he himself pointed out a few months
ago; although we have different views, in both cases we have to adopt
some sort of "bunker attitude" in order to deal with the mountains of
crap dumped on us. He and I handle it in different ways. He handles
it in his way, and I handle it by becoming "arrogant" and "impatient"
and "condescending" with people who attack me personally.

Marc reaps what he sows. I have tried to be patient with him, and I get dodges, deliberate misrepresentations, and outright insults in return. I have decided that it is best not to look at or respond to his posts anymore. It is too tempting to give in to my own surly tendencies by reading his messages.

I don't feel the same way about you, even if others in my so-called "clique" do. I am sorry for the snarkiness I have aimed at you, but I make no apologies for being a liberal or for standing up against what I perceive to be injustices.

The fact that people who fail to march in lockstep with the party line
are villified in this forum means that it's impossible for a lot of
people to even come into to this forum. Why is this forum so
overwhelming Democratic -- something like 95%+? Don't Republicans
also read TFT? The answer is that they come into this forum, quickly
get the picture that they're not wanted, and either remain as lurkers
or leave.

I don't believe that the forum is overwhelmingly Democratic -- rather it's overwhelmingly anti-Bush, and they're not necessarily one and the same thing.

You may be surprised to learn that there are several people in this
forum who have privately messaged me over the years thanking me for
my work. Why don't they post that in the forum? Because they're
afraid that they'll receive the same kind of offensive treatment that
I receive -- and we know how right that fear is.

I don't have any problem with people thanking you for your work. I don't have any problem with people thanking Strauss and Howe, or Mike Alexander, or any of the other heavy-duty historical researchers that post here.

I just wish that this forum had an active moderator. You might be
amused to learn that when I was running the "My ex-husband is now my
financial slave" forum, I always made sure that the feminists had a
chance to be heard. The people I had the most problems with were the
fathers' rights people, who were angry at me because I was a fathers'
rights advocate but still allowed feminists to be heard. I responded
to all the feminists' remarks, but that wasn't enough for them. I
actually had to put some of the fathers' rights people on moderation
because they insisted on treating the feminists abusively. An active
moderator can make sure that everyone is treated fairly.

Under the present circumstances, the only people who can post in this
forum are (a) people who follow in lockstep with the party line, or
(b) people, like Marc and me, who are prepared withstand the onslaught
of crap they receive when they don't follow the party line.

Does Justin '77 follow the party line? Does Uzi? Does Linus? Does Hopeful Cynic? Does KIA '67? None of those gentlemen seem to have a hard time expressing their POVs even if the "clique" doesn't agree with them. There is plenty of diversity here, as I see it.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

You're joking, right? I can't speak for the others on this board, but if one knows nothing else about me, one knows I don't follow anyone's party line about anything. I, for one, don't see any inherent conflict in being strongly populist/anti-corporate, yet being as tough-on-crime as any Law-And-Order Republican. And yet I've been regularly posting on this forum for the past seven years with minimal static.

FWIW, I find a modicum of truth in many of your tirades against feminists... however I do feel you paint women with too broad a brush, even those who (rightly or wrongly) consider themselves "feminists". I doubt seriously that Kiff condones spiteful women enslaving their ex-husbands financially, and I know for a fact that Jenny doesn't.

I might also add that the reason people dislike Marc is because he's an asshole... not because he's a conservative Republican. To illustrate my point, Virgil Saari is also a conservative Republican, yet he's arguably the most respected poster on this board. Why do you suppose he's most often referred to here as "Mr. Saari"?

Mr. S. is not the only gentleman on this board.

Cheers, Kevin, and thanks! Have I told you lately that Jenny is a lucky woman?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Mr. S. is not the only gentleman on this board.

Cheers, Kevin, and thanks! Have I told you lately that Jenny is a lucky woman?

Oh, I have my moments. But, thanx.

Everytime I hear women complaining about discrimination, I want to wrench. Take a look at some of these pictures as proof of the white mans burden.











Everyone is oppressed, unless you're a caucasian male in the upper 10% of the economic bracket. Difference is, males accept their oppression for the betterment of society. With feminism however, many women have stopped accepting their "oppression" (Or innate posistion) and society is hurting because of it. Oh no, you don't get paid as much as men. Try getting scurvy while sitting in the trenches. Besides, I wonder overall what percentage of a mans money earned goes directly to women, whether through gifts or otherwise. I'm sorry, but the fact that people are still worrying about womens lib when boys behavior is at an all time low (As the saecleum would have it), is to me, disgraceful.

Originally Posted by BigStar

Everyone is oppressed, unless you're a caucasian male in the upper 10% of the economic bracket. Difference is, males accept their oppression for the betterment of society.

But is society really better for all that oppression?

With feminism however, many women have stopped accepting their "oppression" (Or innate posistion) and society is hurting because of it.

Bollocks. We're still having kids and raising them. We're still maintaining households. We're getting college degrees and making good money, and many of us still know how to get along with men.

Oh no, you don't get paid as much as men. Try getting scurvy while sitting in the trenches. Besides, I wonder overall what percentage of a mans money earned goes directly to women, whether through gifts or otherwise. I'm sorry, but the fact that people are still worrying about womens lib when boys behavior is at an all time low (As the saecleum would have it), is to me, disgraceful.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by boys' behavior being at an all-time low?

But is society really better for all that oppression?

No, of course not. The issue isn't whethere we'd be better or worse without it, it's whether we can realistically do away with it. Whether or not it's something we could actually do away with.

Bollocks. We're still having kids and raising them. We're still maintaining households. We're getting college degrees and making good money, and many of us still know how to get along with men.

Yeah, you're right. I tend to make sweeping accusations. The point is though, that women are entering society feeling (Insert word I can't remember). What I'm trying to say is that women think they deserve things more than men, for whatever reason or excuse their supposed oppression brought them. I just hate this culture of victims.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by boys' behavior being at an all-time low?

Boys are becoming extremley alienated from society because no one cares about us, and I was referencing the "boys crisis" that exists even though it's definitely exagerated. The focus, whether it be teaching kids how to read or what have you, is centered on girls. No one cares about white male boys anymore because of course we're the ones who fuck up the world.

Originally Posted by BigStar

What I'm trying to say is that women think they deserve things more than men, for whatever reason or excuse their supposed oppression brought them. I just hate this culture of victims.

Boys are becoming extremley alienated from society because no one cares about us, and I was referencing the "boys crisis" that exists even though it's definitely exagerated. The focus, whether it be teaching kids how to read or what have you, is centered on girls. No one cares about white male boys anymore because of course we're the ones who fuck up the world.

Ummm...can you see the irony here in what you're saying?

For what it's worth, I agree that for some time now (at least 20 years or so), the focus has been on helping girls to catch up with boys, to the neglect of boys. It went too far. But some people have noticed, and things are swinging back the other way.

Raising Cain

Real Boys


The Minds of Boys

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Ummm...can you see the irony here in what you're saying?

For what it's worth, I agree that for some time now (at least 20 years or so), the focus has been on helping girls to catch up with boys, to the neglect of boys. It went too far. But some people have noticed, and things are swinging back the other way.

Raising Cain

Real Boys


The Minds of Boys

I've noticed the pendulum swinging back for a few years now. I believe it started back in the early 90s when "Take Your Daughter To Work Day" provoked a major uproar... as in "Why the hell can't we take our sons to work that day? Aren't THEY important too?". Ironically, most of this anger came from Moms, not Dads.

I could relate because my Dad used to take my brother and I to work with him all the time back in the 60s. As three kids were lots more to handle, he did so less often after my sister was up and walking about. This apparently didn't harm her... or her current six-figure salary... very much.

This whole thing about "helping girls catch up" always seemed like such a crock anyway. All through school, beginning in Kindergarten and First Grade, the girls were always a bit ahead of the boys in terms of grades (not ME, of course :-), rather than behind. The concept that girls universally needed "catching up" still rings patently false... although it is possible they did lag in some parts of the country (L.A., perhaps?).

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

This whole thing about "helping girls catch up" always seemed like such a crock anyway. All through school, beginning in Kindergarten and First Grade, the girls were always a bit ahead of the boys in terms of grades (not ME, of course :-), rather than behind. The concept that girls universally needed "catching up" still rings patently false... although it is possible they did lag in some parts of the country (L.A., perhaps?).

One problem is that elementary school teaching has traditionally been a women's profession, in elementary school the only male teacher I had was the 6th Grade one. This gives girls an advantage because one would suspect that a female teacher would understand what makes female students tick better then the male students.

The notion of girls needing "help to catch up" is BS created by Femminist psudo-sociologists who created BS theories about how Western society is "inhierently misygonistic"

Originally Posted by Odin

The notion of girls needing "help to catch up" is BS created by Femminist psudo-sociologists who created BS theories about how Western society is "inhierently misygonistic"

That "inherently misogynistic" culture is the one that gave birth to feminism in the first place.

Gimme Western liberal democracy any day over the prevailing alternatives.

Ummm...can you see the irony here in what you're saying?

For what it's worth, I agree that for some time now (at least 20 years or so), the focus has been on helping girls to catch up with boys, to the neglect of boys. It went too far. But some people have noticed, and things are swinging back the other way.

Frankly, no, and I figured you'd say something about what seems a contradiction. The real injustices usually come from where society says there is no unjustice. I'm not trying to promote victimship, I'm just saying women over the course of history have got the better ride than men, and trying to claim otherwise would be wrong. Also, trying to paint all of human history before 1960 as terrible and unjust to women, without noting the much greater wrongs done to men, is also false. Look it up, it's called conscription!

And don't think I'm protesting the role at all. Contrary. A lot of American men simply don't have a sense of manhood, and women equally, no sense of womenhood. I'm just looking for the Crisis to knock our post-modern, politcally correct, modern-art museum intellectual loving selves on our asses.

Also, you're right, the trend is reversing.

That "inherently misogynistic" culture is the one that gave birth to feminism in the first place.

Scientific, political, and cultural advancements of white men gave birth to feminism.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

That "inherently misogynistic" culture is the one that gave birth to feminism in the first place.

Gimme Western liberal democracy any day over the prevailing alternatives.

There is a difference between "misogynistic" and "inhierently mysogynistic." I don't think a society can be "inhierently" anything, that's essentialistic thinking.

Originally Posted by BigStar

Frankly, no, and I figured you'd say something about what seems a contradiction. The real injustices usually come from where society says there is no unjustice. I'm not trying to promote victimship, I'm just saying women over the course of history have got the better ride than men, and trying to claim otherwise would be wrong. Also, trying to paint all of human history before 1960 as terrible and unjust to women, without noting the much greater wrongs done to men, is also false. Look it up, it's called conscription!

You won't get an argument from me on the evils of conscription -- or slavery, or forced marriages either, for that matter.

And don't think I'm protesting the role at all. Contrary. A lot of American men simply don't have a sense of manhood, and women equally, no sense of womenhood.

I told you about my sense of womanhood above. I'll leave it to you or Odin to define manhood, since I would have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm just looking for the Crisis to knock our post-modern, politcally correct, modern-art museum intellectual loving selves on our asses.

Heh.

Do you realize what a kick it is talking about this with two guys who are young enough to be my own kids?

Originally Posted by BigStar

Scientific, political, and cultural advancements of white men gave birth to feminism.

Yeah, pretty much. But we had to step through the door that those gentlemen opened for us.

Originally Posted by Odin

There is a difference between "misogynistic" and "inhierently mysogynistic." I don't think a society can be "inhierently" anything, that's essentialistic thinking.

A society is by definition made up of multiple individuals. That *is* inherent.

Take your young male to:

A house of worship and talk about Moses or Jesus or Mahomet or Gautama or Lao-Tse or Confucius.

An art museum and talk of Rembrandt or Leonardo or Pablo or Andy.

A library and talk of Ernest or Edward or George or St. Augustine.

A transport station and talk of Louis or Henry or Henry J. or Charles.

A electronics emporium and talk of Bill or Akio or Linus.

A performing arts center and talk of Wolfgang Amadeus or George Frideric or Marius or John-Paul-George-Richard.

A government housing and talk of John C. and Thomas and James and Abraham and Franklin and Dwight.

A farm and talk of Luther and George Washington and Hesiod.

etc. etc.

If you want to preserve the manliness of the American man, mold the child by giving him those rare examples of male accomplishment (don't deny their failings). You can find such worthies in most any field of human endeavor-- take him to T4T and talk to him of Neil and William and ....

Dear Kevin,

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

> FWIW, I find a modicum of truth in many of your tirades against
> feminists... however I do feel you paint women with too broad a
> brush, even those who (rightly or wrongly) consider themselves
> "feminists".

Maybe you're right - I only have anecdotal information, so I can't be
sure. But let me point something out: Here in Massachusetts, there
are 70,000 restraining orders issued each year. Now, I don't believe
that more than a few hundred of these are anywhere close to being
valid. So that means that women are using phony restraining orders
as a common everyday tactic. Their lawyers encourage them to. And
why not? Going to court with a woman to get a restraining order and,
if he's lucky, going back several times more to fight for it, is
worth thousands of dollars to a lawyer in fees. It's a no-brainer to
the lawyer, and it's easy to convince an ex-wife. So I believe that
women lie in divorce court as a matter of course, based on what I
know.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

> Bush? I dislike him intensely. For one simple reason: This
> President would really love to privatize my job. To put more money
> into the hands of Halliburton et al. Even though this would cost
> the taxpayers twice as much money. Which dovetails nicely with
> GWB's wholehearted support and encouragement of offshoring our
> entire manufacturing base. Enough said.

That's what I really meant when I said "Republican." I should have
written "people who like George Bush."

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

> The divorce system? I've heard many of the same horror stories
> myself. What's scariest about it is they could end up killing off
> the institution of marraige, with all that such implies, if when
> the dust settles most men are too afraid of ending up as
> indentured servants. OTOH, my own divorce went pretty smoothly. It
> cost me the princely sum of $500 in attorney's fees... no alimony,
> and no loss of half my assets, either. Signed off on July 25,
> 2002... by a female judge! I didn't even have to attend the
> "ceremony". So my thinking is that the whole opportunism thing is
> on the wane... gone the way of erstwhile million-dollar hot coffee
> lawsuits... which is what I would expect entering a Fourth
> Turning.

As a general rule, childless marriages go through pretty easily. In
fact, it's actually not the marriage that's the issue; it's having
children, even for unmarried couples. It's the children that the
feminists and courts leverage to extort money.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

> To illustrate my point, Virgil Saari is also a conservative
> Republican, yet he's arguably the most respected poster on this
> board. Why do you suppose he's most often referred to here as "Mr.
> Saari"?

That's only because everyone's intimidated by the fact that his name
contains two consecutive "a"s.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Mr. Saari,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> I took the intensity of your argument to be the issue of the
> shortness of the day's sunned path, the lateness of the hour, and
> the New England tradition of proximity to the products of the
> Triangular Trade.

Are you saying that I'm on a sugar high?

I think that the intensity came about because of a combination of
factors: 1 - my personal feelings about the subject; 2 - the fact
that a friend of a friend had just blown his brains out after his
ex-wife lied for the umpteenth time and the judge said he'd go to
jail if he didn't pay thousands of dollars that he didn't have; 3 -
proximity to Christmas, which is always a time of heavy contemplation
for me.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> But, I did condemn Mr. Clinton who was quite rightly impeached and
> sadly not convicted. I thought Mr. Gore a loon who had an odd
> sense of fashion and his wife a labeller of aesthics way beyond
> her abilities as an art critic. It is their being of the Boomer
> Generation in the political world (which I have observed at remove
> and close at hand for nearly four decades) that makes me think the
> Crown of Creation totally unsuited for the governance of the lower
> order, or indeed, themselves.

I liked Al Gore, and think he would have made a good President. I
view his current lunacy as part of a conscious decision to change
directions in life and get people to stop asking him to run for
President again.

It's true that Boomers can't govern, but that's true of all Prophet
generations. I've been pointing out on my web site that 4T countries
around the world can't govern -- the Palestinians and the Israelis
are (each) completely paralyzed, and France and China are other good
examples. At least Ahmadinjehad and his clerical superiors seem able
to govern. Aren't we lucky.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> We are quick to mount Not-Wars upon small nations and play the
> Austrian-born Corporal Card at the first instance of opposition.
> We think ourselves at Iwo Jima when we bomb the television studios
> of Belgrade or at the Bulge when the gardeners of Helmand are
> denied their plots. We think the instruction of the young is a
> matter of regimentation (from school uniformism to Leaving No
> Child Alone) which we found so shackling when we were so bound. We
> are quick to be both victim and master in the instant.

I don't think it's fruitful to use the Hitler comparison. I would
also ask you to consider the fact that we can't really blame Boomers
for our becoming Policemen of the World -- that belongs to Truman.
Since then we've had Korea, Vietnam, two pre-emptive wars on Cuba,
two pre-emptive wars (or one long pre-emptive war) on Iraq, a
pre-emptive war on Bosnia, a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, and
probably others I can't think of right now.

And we still have people wondering why we aren't sending troops in to
save the Darfurians.

You see, Mr. Saari, everyone has his favorite war. It's only the
other guys' wars that people don't like.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> As to the idea of an "active" moderator, I think this would only
> subject T4T to less variety. Would someone such as the Great Meece
> be allowed to argue from the planets if he were not already here?
> Would those others in the "weird" party, who would tell us the
> future even if we don't wish to know it for philosophical or
> religious or practical reasons (surely every forecast of the
> future ought to have a *SPOILER* alert) get past the Cliometrician
> in charge?

No, this wouldn't happen. The only place where a moderator can truly
get away with exerting such controls is in single-threaded,
single-subject forums, such as business forums, which are required to
"stick to business." In other environments, the user community would
scream bloody murder at unwarranted interference. A moderator only
works when he's enforcing the rules that the community wants
enforced. Without a moderator, bottom-feeders get to control things.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> The first feminists were in the late 1960s making an assertion of
> the value and values of their kind.

Feminism as we know it really began in the 1830s or thereabouts.

You have to remember that feminism is not about men versus women.
It's about women versus women -- ex-wives versus second wives, black
women versus white women, rich women versus poor women, etc. --
usually in competition for a man's money or for public resources.
And when women fight with one another, there's always a man around to
blame.

In the 1840s it was women working in factors versus high-class women
disdaining such work. The working women were jealous of the
high-class women's wealth, and the high-class women were angered at
the working girl's sexuality, especially when they used their
sexuality to get money from their husbands.

You just have to remember: It's never about anything but money.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Pat,

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> It occurs to me the entire divorce thing we're talking about may
> have been a transitional thing. When I was first married, the vast
> majority of married women were housewives, and in the late 1950s,
> the big divorce scandal was men divorcing their middle-aged wives
> to marry (or just chase) younger women. This threw them on a
> pink-collar labor market that paid very little and defined "over
> the hill" as "over 25." [Actually, "over the hill" has been
> defined as "pre-boomer" since I started working.]

Actually, divorces are overwhelmingly initiated by women, usually for
trivial reasons ("he doesn't satisfy me any more"), and opposed by
their husbands.

It's not a transitional thing either. The divorce rate has been
growing exponentially for at least 1½ centuries, finally leveling off
around 50% in the 1980s.



Today's support payments are so high that women get pregnant (or
married and pregnant) with every intention of excluding the father
and collecting child support payments.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> BTW - the rush to the labor market [*I* won't be left high and dry
> like my mother!] left their children more or less stranded, so we
> now get Xer moms staying home with their kids. And polemicists
> shouting about how we've destroyed the family. So - what's a
> mother to do? Have the federal government give her a stipend and a
> pension as they are said to do in Scandinavia?

We used to do that too -- only we called it the "welfare
entitlement." Tens of millions of girls would get pregnant and dump
the father just to get welfare payments. Then the Clinton
administration eliminated the pension .. I mean the welfare
entitlement, and now girls get pregnant and dump the father just to
collect child support payments.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> Accepted.

You're a fair person, Kiff, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> John, haven't I made it clear that I don't subscribe to that
> philosophy? All I want is political equality, and for men and
> women to treat each other fairly in private as well as in public.
> That is what I've always believed that feminism was all about;
> thus, I will continue to call myself by that name. I will NEVER
> advocate for the kind of injustice that you have described -- and
> trust me, it is an injustice of the worst sort.

But who doesn't believe in fairness? Every political persuasion of
all types use "fairness" as a justification. The Ku Klux Klan makes
a fairness argument that it's only fair for white's to have their own
land. No one's against fairness.

I always like to point out that the so-called "unfairness" of the
evil 1950s was a consequence of what most women themselves wanted.
There was never any discrimination at all; in fact, my own mother did
quite well going from bookkeeper to top-level financial executive for
a midsized manufacturing firm.

During the 1930s, families became homeless and were forced into the
streets. During the war, tens of millions of women lost their
husbands to the war, and women who would have liked to stay home and
take care of the kids were forced to take "Rosie the Riveter" jobs
that they hated, but took them anyway out of patriotism.

By the time the 1950s came around, the "American way of life" meant
that every woman could have a husband, a couple of kids, and a nice
home (with a nice picket fence), and women wouldn't be forced to work
unless they wanted to. 1950s women didn't want their daughters to
suffer as they had, and they considered it to be a gift to their
daughters that they handed them a country where all that was
possible. 1960s women's libbers humiliated their mothers by rejecting
that message. They were mad at their mothers for telling them to
wear girdles and not to have sex before marriage. They burned their
bras in rebellion against their mothers. But women were never
discriminated against. As I've said before, it's rare to find men
who are misogynists, except for psychopaths like anger retaliatory
rapists, but it's not at all uncommon to find women who are
misogynists.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> I don't feel the same way about you, even if others in my
> so-called "clique" do. I am sorry for the snarkiness I have aimed
> at you, but I make no apologies for being a liberal or for
> standing up against what I perceive to be injustices.

Fair enough. As for the "incident", I'm really not being obscure; I'm
still referring to this.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> I don't believe that the forum is overwhelmingly Democratic --
> rather it's overwhelmingly anti-Bush, and they're not necessarily
> one and the same thing.

I agree. I should have said anti-Bush.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> That "inherently misogynistic" culture is the one that gave birth
> to feminism in the first place.

> Gimme Western liberal democracy any day over the prevailing
> alternatives.

I'm sorry, that's not true. What gave birth to feminist is poor
women being jealous of rich women's money, and rich women being
jealous of poor women's sexuality. Men are just cannon fodder.

Sincerely,

John

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