Bush was a weak president before 911 and he will remain so. If anything, this crisis will show his weaknesses in a greater light as well as his strengths.
At the moment, both republicans and democrats are, in private, somewhat dismayed at Bush acting like he is Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral. I realize that the rhetoric is 4T in nature and that it will be needed 15 years from now. However, people realize that our pres. needs to choose his words more carefully lest he destroy the goodwill this nation has been given due to this act.

I made an earlier post recently responding to your comment that anyone who thinks we're still in a 3T is in denial; but it's hard to find things on this new site.

Of course I think continuing a 3T would have been more desireable than going to war, to the extent that 3Ts afford more opportunity for creative expression than 4Ts. I still think the astrological cycles give some hope of this (and they are still my main lens for viewing history and events). Remember also, that I predicted this war, more or less. I knew the USA would go to war in summer 2001. The cycles were VERY clear on this. It could turn out that this war crisis will be more like World War I than World War II; it may only last a year, after which the 3T could resume.

Obviously too, there are things about a 4T that I like much better than a 3T, especially THIS 3T. This has been a time of cynicism and distraction with nonsense. Too bad. Pulling together over important issues is far preferable. But as I have always noted, the "decline in spiritual curiosity" which has been characteristic of 4Ts in America is not desireable. In this case, if this is the 4T, it has come so early that there is still time left on the clock for spiritual curiosity and creative expression. 3T and 4T may have to coexist, or phase in and out, for a time, before the 4T completely congeals.

OK...Who are you, and what have you done with Eric Meece? :wink: You sound like a totally different person. Have you all of a sudden become very old? Before this event, you just could not stand the thought of 4T.

Brian, you made some interesting points. I wish to comment on this:

>>> Two presidents, since our Constitution was ratified, were in office or elected thereto when the Crisis catalyzed. I count Lincoln in that role, not Buchanan, because Buchanan's reelection wasn't an issue. The other one was Herbert Hoover. <<<

Since Lincoln is generally likened to FDR in all the important respects, your post is thought provoking for its originality. However I do not believe your pairing of Lincoln with Hoover stands. Lincoln's crisis did not catalyze after his election. In fact it did so _upon_ his election. Lincoln's election represented the people's conscious decision to go ahead and catalyze the crisis.
The sides had already formed up during Buchanan's tenure. The Compromise of 1850, despite its defects, had put the Union on life support for a few more years. But opposition to fugitive slave laws and the like had grown so intense by Buchanan's term, that only the most masterful statesman could pull off another compromise and save the Union. Buchanan fell short of the mark and failed the test. But it is unclear whether anybody could have passed that particular test.

South Carolina and perhaps a few other Southern states announced that, no ifs, ands, or buts, they would secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected. So the American people went to the polls knowing full well that a vote for Lincoln meant secession and probably war. Lincoln won and, true to their word, South Carolina convened a secession convention shortly after his victory (a plurality in a four way race which itself displayed the precariousness of the Union's hold on life) and officially seceded in December 1860, months before Lincoln even assumed office (under the original schedule). The six other Deep South states quickly followed suit. By the time Lincoln was sworn in, the nation was already irretrievably fractured and in full crisis -- by the people's conscious choice.

So I believe we have to continue to equate Hoover with Buchanan. Both were tested. Both failed. And both Lincoln and FDR were elected as a result of the failure of their predecessors to deal with their respective crises. It is not an exact fit because history does not deal with us predictably in multiples of four providing catalysts at uniform points. Nevertheless, Lincoln was elected in response to the crisis just as was FDR. Lincoln inherited his crisis just as much as FDR did. The only difference is that the people willingly chose to catalyze the crisis at a specific point in time with Lincoln's election. And that would seem to be a pretty unique occurrence.

Now here is a dose of reality for you:

The first charge of any nation is to protect the life of its citizens. John
Locke pointed to this as the very basis for a government's reason to exist
when groups came together for saftey anr protection against those in the
"state of nature" who threathened them.
Your "competent social policy" means very little to the souls beneath the
rubble of the WTC. Our nation and politicans have let us down. By
posturing over an endless array of social benefits wrapped up in the
concept of an ever expanding government (which both parties have done),
they have dropped the ball with regard to the very basic functions of our
government, our security, freedom, and property. Or as Mr. Locke put it
our "Life, liberty, and property"

Tom, what you and other libertarian conservative ideologists forget is that security not only applies to threats from other nations and peoples, but also to threats from those who would use their economic power to prey on others. Security is about social security as much as national security. Just look at the last Crisis, and you will see that. The politicians of today were not ignoring a non-existent problem, but one that will surely have to be dealt with in this new (or soon upcoming) 4T, and whose effects will make themselves clear in the next decade or two.

Your John Locke 18th century liberalism is grossly out of date. Join the 21st century, Tom. It's more interesting. We are not mere individuals competing with each other for bread; we are in this life together as a society. Private charity is not enough to meet the needs of the people; the government is needed. Government is not a bad thing, just because Reagan said so. I think too the majority of Xers see that now. Most are not extreme libertarians such as yourself. They are wise and know the practicalities of life. Extreme utopian philosophies of "less government" as the answer to all problems will not wash with most Xers anymore. Government is needed for some things, though it may not be needed to do everything.

I'm glad the government is facing up to the threat from the bin Laden terrorist fundamentalists. There are also other problems we will have to face up to; it is a long list. In the Reagan-Gingrich era that you love, they were ignored. They will come up and bite us all soon.

It may feel like a 4T and only time will tell but it sure is interesting how S&H and others have talked about how Bush is often deffering to his Silent cabinet. This may be because the youngest Silents are only 59 years old now.
Being only fifty-nine years old is awfully young for an adaptive generation to enter a 4T. At the start of the American Revolution Crisis in 1773 the youngest of the Enlightenment Gen. were 73. At the time of the Civil War Crisis in 1860, the youngest of the Comprimise Gen. were 69. And at the time of the Depression/ WWII Crisis in 1929, the youngest Progressives were 70 years old.
The Silents are about 10 years younger than the youngest of the Adaptives entering a 4T previously. This may mean more "procedure, timetables, evidence, mulitlateral alliances, etc." that defer a 4T.

Eric:


Of course I think continuing a 3T would have been more desireable than going to war


Oh, I knew that. The question really is whether a 3T war is more desirable than a 4T one. Unfortunately, we've got the war either way.


I predicted this war, more or less. I knew the USA would go to war in summer 2001.


Not bad. I missed that one. I was reasonably sure the catalyst would be one of the other two issues, and thought the war would wait until later.


It could turn out that this war crisis will be more like World War I than World War II


You know, that brings up an important point. I'll consider WWI in a minute; right now I think it's important to consider the ways in which this war will NOT be like WWII. Because it really won't.


On one level that's obvious, because the enemy is very different than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, and because military technology has advanced so far since then. But I think it's also important to recognize that a war which begins the Crisis is different from one that ends it. It's already been pointed out that 911 can't be a parallel to Pearl Harbor except on a superficial level, because when Pearl was hit we'd already been in Crisis for 12 years. Pearl Harbor wasn't the catalyst; if, as I believe, we're now in 4T, 911 was. Or rather, it was one in a series of catalysts. I do believe we actually entered the 4T earlier in the year, but certainly not very long ago.


So in that respect it's more like the Revolutionary War than any other 4T war we've fought. It's the first act rather than the last one. And that, in turn, means that it won't resolve the issues of the Crisis when the military phase is completed. There are other issues. We'll still have many things to resolve after the fighting is over. The Climax of the Crisis will not be part of this war, and may well not be military at all.


World War I -- hmm. My sense is that our goals and policies in that war were a lot murkier and less well defined than they are in this one. There wasn't the same questioning of our foreign policy and hashing over mistakes (whereas there was in WWII, as well as now). The stated goals of the war ("to end war" or "to make the world safe for democracy") were highflown airy-fairy things. It wasn't a war for survival, but for principle.


But I think what you meant was the duration, wasn't it, rather than characteristics of the war itself? I honestly can't see this taking only a year. It might take that long to nab bin Laden, but Bush is clearly setting goals way beyond that. Do you anticipate a collapse of public resolve after the first push, should that first push be successful?


One possible deflation would occur if the Taliban were to hand bin Laden over. While it's obvious our government recognizes that this would not end the danger, I'm not so sure the people do.


This has been a time of cynicism and distraction with nonsense.


Yeah, I noticed that. :wink: Unlike you, I've never believed it could be otherwise save through the hard route of Crisis.

Actually I had meant to post one more set of comments, a sort of "brain dump", so I'll do that before I take leave.

As I prepare for a week's vacation, I realize it will be my first trip in 4T America. My last trip was in 3T, and was carefree. The one word that no longer applies, which for me better sums up the transition to 4T than anything else, is that word, "carefree". The world is not carefree anymore. Of course it never really was carefree, but the 3T sure gave a good illusion of it.

Another comment: the phrase "all is fair in love and war". The living generations might come to appreciate the depth of that phrase by living through the 4T. Things will be tolerated that never would have been during the 3T.

Remember "Hell no, we won't go!" We will soon be as far away from that sentiment as is possible in the cycle of turnings.

I often try my hand at witty phrases, usually without much acclaim (although I do take credit for "E2K", used by many on this site). Here's one: "Nothing should be done in excess -- not even moderation." This can be applied to Silent diplomacy in a 4T. Of course I could also state: "Nothing should be done in excess -- including excess." Which would apply to the 3T culture.

You can see I'm running dry here. Hasta la proxima. Turn people on to _T4T_ -- the concept might even make its way into the national consciousness, and then maybe we'll have some hope of sound policy.

Later.

Well, I've updated my website with a brand new introduction. Check it out: http://www.geocities.com/mad_scientist2064/

I wonder if our authors would like to post an update of their introduction to this topic on, say, Sept 20, giving them an extra week of perspective. How are we shaping up in the 10 areas you pointed out?

On 2001-09-17 21:09, tom65 wrote:

Being only fifty-nine years old is awfully young for an adaptive generation to enter a 4T. At the start of the American Revolution Crisis in 1773 the youngest of the Enlightenment Gen. were 73. At the time of the Civil War Crisis in 1860, the youngest of the Comprimise Gen. were 69. And at the time of the Depression/ WWII Crisis in 1929, the youngest Progressives were 70 years old.
The Silents are about 10 years younger than the youngest of the Adaptives entering a 4T previously. This may mean more "procedure, timetables, evidence, mulitlateral alliances, etc." that defer a 4T.

I've been thinking about that myself of late. If we assume the Generational Theory is true, then this is almost unprecedented (again, assuming we are in 4T).

That's combined with another new thing, a remarkably large percentage of surviving Civics from the previous 4T. Could these factors alter the flow of the Crisis in any meaningful way?

One interesting thing: we now have an Boomer leader, surrounded by Silent advisors and aides, rather than just Xers, as the usual formula for a 4T calls. I don't think this has happened before.

Does anyone see any likely outcomes of having _both_ Silent and Xers playing key roles around the Boomer leaders?

On to Bush. Bush, alas, has all the charisma and inspiring leadership ability of an overcooked turnip. So he's going to be a subjective failure, and there isn't much can be done about that. If he's going to be reelected, it has to be on the strength of his objective success, i.e. winning the war and, most likely, achieving success in the other struggles of the 4T. Can he do it? And will it be enough?

Brian, charisma is relative. From first-hand experience, I can tell you that in the Red Zone, they are reacting _very_ well to the way Bush is approaching this, and they like what they see of his personal style.

The thing you have to understand, to understand the Red Zone Americans, is that
for many of them, the very traits you tend to dislike or disregard in Bush are reassuring and respectable. To them, Bush _is_ charismatic, though in a quiet, restrained sort of way.

These are the same people who did not find Clinton charismatic, but rather tended on a visceral level to regard him as a fraud. I knew people who had this reaction to Clinton from the _first day_ they saw him on TV, before they heard a single position or knew anything about him.

You're making an error if you regard the Red Zone as a fringe group. It is essentially half the population of the United States.

Amazing i have been readers of your books since 13th Gen I was the first caller on the Jim Bohanon show back in about "91/92" i was the xer that said that i had always felt out of place until i started hearing the things you were saying most powerful moment of my life.

I have been telling my friends in grad school that this is not like pearl harbor but more like the crash of '29. it is definaltely the catalyst moment. there is no doubt that a change in the mood of the country is brewing. more so than with "challenger." Listen to the talk that is directed toward the "mills" "You may be called on to do great things" NCAA football coach.
i have been saying that it is way too soon i was not ready for it until later in the decade, i have really been assesing my life and which direction i need to start going and since i really have a sense of my gen i know i can't be the only one.
as you say its time to step back and watch events unfold and keep tuned in to the signs.

_________________
Libertas, Honestas, Superstas
Gen Xer my entire life, i bear my burdens.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: exiled1 on 2001-09-18 01:56 ]</font>

One more thing, i sometimes find it difficult trying to explain this book because i fear that i begin to sound like an old man walking around with a sandwich board proclaiming the end of the world. I always say that we have gotten through these things and emerged better but i wonder if now people will be ready for the burden i do think so.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: exiled1 on 2001-09-18 02:07 ]</font>

If Afghanistan does hand bin Laden over to us, does that mean no 4T for now?

And if it does, how's this for an analogy: We hang bin Laden, and he becomes this saeculum's version of John Brown!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-09-18 02:46 ]</font>

This article has some good stuff.
Im starting to feel more at ease, and im thinking that 9-11, is going to be like john Brown, or the Stamp Tax.
A terrible prelude.
I dont feel entirely changed.
I picked up my guitar again, and my music sounds the same.
For awhile I couldnt listen to it because it seemed so trivial.



Want to send this story to another AOL member? Click on the heart at the top of this window.

Young Americans Sense a Turning Point

By CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN
.c The Associated Press


Torment, not years, creased the faces of Americans coming of age as they watched the terrorists' horrific handwork unfold along with the rest of the nation and the world.

Now that young people have had a few days to absorb Tuesday's events, some say they sense the terrorist attacks may have changed them forever.

Changed them how? By turning them outward, many say, to try to understand the rest of the world better, to fathom why the attackers could hate this country so much. By making them more serious, more patriotic, some say, and making them less tolerant of relativist thinking, less patient with trivia.

``For a generation of young people, this is their Pearl Harbor; their Kennedy assassination,'' turning points in their parents' and grandparents' young lives, a Los Angeles Times editorial said.

``We all remember where we were the day JFK was shot. This will have the same importance,'' a professor at the University of Nevada-Reno, Sue Johnson, told her students. ``You will know where you were and what you did this day.''

Landmark buildings have disintegrated countless times in movies and video games for this generation. But the planes that struck Tuesday were not special effects, and some young people say something shifted psychically for them.

``People our age,'' said Stacey Flynn, an 18-year-old student at Scottsdale Community College in Arizona, ``they don't know what it's like to actually have to deal with something more than what they're driving and what they're wearing...

``I don't feel safe anymore, because it was such a huge thing,'' she said - and seemingly so easily pulled off.

``They came into our country, used our education to get their pilots' licenses, used our own equipment and our own people to kill us. It's like the scariest thing that could possibly happen.''

William Sexton Jr. was in second-period computer class at Millbrook High School in Raleigh, N.C., going over a test, when a counselor burst in and told students to turn on the television.

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were burning.

``I just can't believe that they had the nerve to do it,'' Sexton said.

Last month, he signed up for delayed entry into the Army, hoping for the Airborne. On Thursday, he returned to the recruiting office to see if they needed him now. He turns 18 this week.

``I joined up because I needed it for college, and just because experience in the Army would make me a better person,'' he said. ``But now, when it comes down to this, I'm ready to go. I'm ready.''

In stories like Sexton's, many older Americans can find a reflection of their own experiences.

Gene Epperson, now 79, was a 17-year-old store clerk in Hamilton, Ohio, until the events of Dec. 7, 1941, turned him into an Army paratrooper. At a memorial service for the terrorists' victims, held at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu last week, he looked back and ahead.

``Your future was uncertain,'' said Epperson, who wore a baseball cap from the Battleship Missouri Memorial.

``Life is going to be different from now on,'' he said, reflecting on today's young people. ``Even here we can be reached.''

History's turning points have been David McCullough's career. The author and historian was 8 years old when Pearl Harbor was bombed. He was working for the Kennedy administration when JFK was assassinated.

``I remember the shock and numbness of my parents and older people after Pearl Harbor, and until now the Kennedy assassination was the most horrible national trauma of my experience,'' said McCullough, who was in Washington Tuesday and watched the smoke billow from the Pentagon. ``This surpasses that in both its magnitude and the psychological blow it has been to the country and each of us as individuals.''

In this changed America, he said, our heroes are no longer movie stars and ballplayers. They are firefighters.

``The attitude that everything is relative, that nothing is black or white but all shades of gray - that mushy thinking has to go out the window,'' McCullough said. ``This is a deadly contest with pure evil.''

Another observer of history, author Todd Gitlin, considered parallels with JFK's assassination. Some important things, such as government policy, changed little in that decisive moment, he said.

``But something did change. There was a rupture in the psyche, and the rupture took the form of, `My God, anything is possible,''' said Gitlin. ``So in some ways, the horrors of the late '60s - the growth of the Vietnam War and the assassinations - somehow these things, while not attributable to the Kennedy assassination, seemed somehow less surprising.''

In the wake of the terrorist attacks, some young people don't want to believe in a permanent psychic shift.

The redrawn skyline of Manhattan, their destination, was just coming into view for the crew of the U.S. Navy ship Comfort as Lt. Beth Montanus tried to assess her generation's state of mind. Yes, the attacks have reshaped their psyche - but only temporarily, she thought.

``At this moment in time, we are different because everybody is in shock,'' she said aboard the ship, which will house and care for recovery workers. ``But we will not be, once the reaction part is over and we regroup. I will not pull up next to anybody in a car, look over and think anything differently than I did on Monday.''

She is 27. Many others, that age or younger, see more lasting change.

At candlelight vigils and dorm discussions, they speak of other news events that became crucibles - the Columbine school shootings, the Oklahoma City bombing, even the Challenger explosion when they were very young. But nothing is like this.

``Don't you think we're going to wonder if it can happen again?'' said 19-year-old Darcy Hambrick of George Washington University in the nation's capital, where a red brick walkway was splotched with melted wax from a vigil held the night before.

Maybe the violence can lead Americans to better understand the underlying causes of the hatred some harbor against the United States, said the student from Englewood, N.J. But, she said, worries about safety will be paramount.

This generation already knew the world was a small place, but Tuesday's terror drove that point home in a harsh new way.

``We're global,'' said Sarah Hassing, a 20-year-old at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. She is disturbed by the militant talk that has followed the attacks.

``Obviously, we've made someone mad. I want to know: What did we do, to make someone so mad?'' said Hassing, who marched in the WTO demonstrations in Seattle in 1999 - back when World Trade signified an organization to be protested, not a skyscraper crumbling pitifully.

``You're always going to remember where you were and the first things you thought,'' said Katherine Mann, a 19-year-old sophomore at Arizona State University. She awoke to the news Tuesday when her roommate's alarm went off.

``I imagined that it was like what JFK's assassination was like,'' she said. ``I saw people gathering around TVs. I saw people standing outside of cars listening to radios.''

She wants to believe the United States will respond the right way, though she doesn't know exactly what that means. Meanwhile, images of the attacks replay.

``I've wondered what morning I'll wake up and I won't think about it,'' Mann said.

There's an edge in the voice of another Arizona student, Sara Kurtz, who's 23.

``As long as nothing else happens, nothing major happens, life is pretty much going to go on the way it was before,'' she said. But ``what if this is the start of something big?''

She hoped the attacks will be ``the worst thing that happens in our generation.''

``This is something we're going to be talking to our kids about,'' she said. ``Everything's going to be compared to this. It'll be, `Remember the World Trade Center?'''

EDITOR'S NOTE - Contributing to this story were AP writers Pauline Arrillaga in Phoenix; Allen G. Breed in Raleigh; David Foster in Olympia, Wash.; Brett Martel in New Orleans; Paul Shepard in Washington, D.C.; Janis Magin in Honolulu; Hillel Italie in New York; and Douglas Kiker aboard the USNS Comfort.

AP-NY-09-16-01 1541ED

I dont know how this figures in generational theory. soe in the article, like the 27 year old strike me as very Gen X.
In order for S n H's theory to work out Gen X
must end in at least 1978, for the thirteenth generation to be a 17 year generation.
But then again, when Kennedy was assasinated, it certainly had a temendous influence on the silents as well as the boomers.
Im starting to think that the Challenger Explosion will come to signify the marker between Xers and Millies, because I think in a way seeing that happen at such an early age for many of us (most of us were under 20)
cleared the way for us to accept that terrible things do happen. This event will definitely have a tremendous effect on anyone younger that cant remember anything as tragic.
but this is all speculating.
But what is the GenXers event that can set them apart from the Boomers that have some memory of a time before the Kennedy assasination.
And if so where does Gen X end in the light of these events.
well probably never know.
But since this isnt an exact science, id venture that Gen X should forever read.
early 1960s to late 1970s

Hopeful Cynic said:


You're making an error if you regard the Red Zone as a fringe group. It is essentially half the population of the United States.


No, it's not. That's an illusion created by the fact that Bush won almost half the vote in E2K. But his percentages were much higher in the red zone than Gore's were in the blue. Essentially, Bush won almost all the red zone vote together with a respectable minority of the blue zone, showing that the red zone houses far less than half the U.S. population.


Anthony said:


If Afghanistan does hand bin Laden over to us, does that mean no 4T for now?


I don't know. A number of government officials including both Powell and Rumsfeld have pointed out repeatedly that bin Laden isn't the whole picture, but the question is whether people really understand that.


The question might be hypothetical, because the rumor is that the Taliban MIGHT do that if certain conditions are granted which I doubt would be acceptable.

Richt asks.. I'm not sure if you are only pointing out a differing world view that certain peoples might have, or if you are also subscribing to the views you list, since I know there are plenty of Americans who do.

I was more sketching out plausible views of others in the referenced post than my own beliefs. My personal values are far closer to FDR?s version of the Four Freedoms. However, different cultures and citizens thereof take different slants. For example, from the perspective of some fundamentalists, if one does not worship God in a specific way, one is worshiping the devil. This is an understandable perspective. If one is not aware of this perspective, one is not going to be able to deal with such fundamentalists effectively. However, being a devout agnostic, I will go with the secular west?s Freedom of Religion as the desirable principle.

Brian Rush responded well to the rest of your post. I would agree that most American citizens are not interested in keeping the Third World poor. However, I would contend that the US government acts to support the interests and profitability of US companies. This is especially true if said companies contribute to politicians and political parties. Doing a favor for one company in exchange for campaign contributions is a trivial thing, not apt to start World War III. A policy of helping all companies in exchange for a continuous parade of bribes is another. Campaign finance reform, ending a culture of legal bribery among US politicians and lobbyists, might have been the core of an internal crisis had external events not focused attention elsewhere. However, I am hoping somehow we might address the problem anyway.

I would add that US companies also act in the interest of US companies. In the US, how many local businesses are being steam-rolled by Wal-Mart, Home Depot and similar monsters? Perhaps the big guys would be winning even without legalized bribery, but the seed of resentment is still there. I anticipate that much anger at the US is the result of aggressive competitive tactics by US corporations.

As a side note, one of my perspectives on humans is evolutionary psychology. Human emotions or drives such as the male-female bond, parent-child bond, peer bond, territoriality, aggression and others are real. One can learn quite a bit about human behavior by studying animal behavior, especially pack hunters. A vast oversimplification of this behavior is to say that humans are obsessed with sex and violence. It shows up in our entertainment. It shows up in our news coverage. If the 4T has shifted our attention away from sex for a while, and towards violence, let?s note that no one involved is going to be acting on an entirely logical and rational basis. Someone from another pack came into our territory and hurt our pack. The dogs are howling. Still, don?t forget that we have been trampling all other the other pack?s territory for years.

Recently the large corporations in the Airlines, Banks, and Insurance posited that they were "global" or "international" companies. Are they going to "global" or "international" money buckets for a bail-out or have they dressed up in Red, White and Blue Bunting as they march Tricorn in hand to the American Congress and the American Taxpayer for succor?


Will the taxpayers have to make good the large bonus, stock options, etc. of the heads of these newly-American entities? We are all in this together; but, as with flags and the Star Spangled Banner cannot we be allowed to ask, "Where were you last week?"

Last night on the O'Reily Factor Dick Morris pointed out a critical difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton, he said, would be paralyzed by analysis in this crisis. As he tried to get his mind "around the problem" he would insist on briefings from everybody and his brother. Bush, on the other hand, with only briefings from Cheeney and Rice, began making critical decisions immediately, e.g. to shoot down the airliner if it got closer to Washington. He also pointed out another critical difference: Clinton couldn't take casualties. He is like McCellan, a brilliant tactition but unwilling to face the physical consequences of a battle. M.'s failure to pursue Lee after Antietam cost the North Gettysburg ten months later. Just 30 minutes into the crisis Bush made a critical decision (to shoot down that United Flt) that revealed he understands that a nation does not win (and therefore end) wars unless it is prepared to take casaulties.

As I read these posts it appears that those who feel that Bush stole EK2 are not prepared to accept him as a true leader and those who believe he won E2K are quite comfortable with his leadership. That's a classic 3T split, so maybe 4T is still over the horizon.

Last night on the O'Reily Factor Dick Morris pointed out a critical difference between Clinton and Bush.


Red flag here: Dick Morris has a visceral aversion to Bill Clinton. One should take anything he says with a small salt mine.


As Clinton was never confronted with a 4T situation, we don't know what he would have done. It would have been politically impossible for Bush, or anyone else, to respond as we are now to the attacks that occurred during the Clinton years. A truer statement than "Clinton couldn't take casualties" is that at the time, America couldn't take casualties. And if Clinton had caused America to take casualties, America would have blamed Clinton for that.


As I read these posts it appears that those who feel that Bush stole EK2 are not prepared to accept him as a true leader and those who believe he won E2K are quite comfortable with his leadership.


To clarify: I am quite comfortable with Bush's policies in this Crisis, so far. I do not think he should be doing anything other than what he's doing.


That he is a really lousy orator and not very inspiring doesn't change that observation, and really I don't see how anyone could dispute it.

I believe that a type of "historical compression" is taking place as a result of "generational impaction." By "generational impaction" I mean the large numbers of super-super elder heroes and super-elder artists that are still "players" in the political game as we enter into T4T. Population has increased at both ends of the life cycle in an unprecidented way. I have already suggested that this population increase has caused a significant foreshortening of the turning and saecular length (probably the cause of the phenomena that S&H misstakenly took as the "Civil War Anomoly"). It is astonishing to think that the past 3T may have lasted a mere 16 years; From the Challenger disaster to the anarchistic destruction of the World Trade Center ca. 1986-2001. By "historical compression" I am comparing those events in past turnings and saecula that were separated in time to those events that now seem to be happening at the same time. For example, there has been a lot of talk here that connects the WTC to Pearl Harbor. Of course Pearl Harbor did not happen at the beginning of the last crisis but rather towards its end. Everyone here knows that the crash of 1929 marked the beginning of the last crisis. In our last big go-round during E2K I suggested that the election of 2000 was a catalyzing event though not the beginning of T4T. I noted a connection between the elections of 1856 and 1928 which had been equally bi-polarizing events which were followed by economic downterns in 1857 and 1929. I have further suggested that the economic downturn of 2001 was already the beginning of T4T (it has also been suggested that the anarchist activities of John Brown in 1857 can be compared to the WTC 2001 to which I concur). The military activities of the Nationalist Crisis did not begin, as far as the United States was concerned, until 1860 and the military activities of the New Deal Crisis, as far as the United States was concerned, did not begin until December 7 1941. What I am suggesting here is that the military part and economic part of this crisis seem to be happening at the same time and that this "historical compression" of events seems to be driven by that same "generational impaction" that has been the cause of saecular and turning forshortenings. DMMcG

So, President Bush said yesterday that he wants Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

Can't you decide which way you want him, Mr. President?

"Humor is a form of catharsis"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-09-18 10:28 ]</font>

As a later-born Xer (with Boomer parents), I have been struggling to make sense of what happened to us last week. I have a somewhat different perspective than many others of my generation, having been raised in a military family (my Boomer dad realized that the best way to avoid the draft was to go to the Air Force Academy). My reaction was consequently more in line with "red zone" sentiments, a marked contrast to my immediate surroundings here in Seattle. (Though you do need to remember that this area incorporates no less than three military bases close by - Army, Navy, and Air Force - if it comes down to war, we'll be involved.)

My response - and that of my coworkers and friends, all near my age - has been to see that, no matter how we think the country should respond, our lives really are changed. It's scary and unnerving, but in a strange way a relief. After spending childhood and young adulthood in an unremittingly self-centered culture, where the only meaning that you can derive is the "rush" that you get out of your experiences, these events were real, meaningful, and, amazingly, a call to action. Of course, most of us are pretty confused as to WHAT action. Politics, which hasn't engaged me - or most of my circle of peers - because all the politicians look and sound the same (sleazy), suddenly has a point. We do care how we respond to the terrorist attacks - we care tremendously.

People of our generation became heroes on Flight 93, using tactics that no doubt they practiced on the ubiquitous video games all of us (and the Millennials) have grown up on. I think the fact that we all are so well trained in combat simulations is an indicator that, if this escalates into a full-blown war, we have the potential to do very well indeed. The question before was whether anything could motivate the Xers to fight for a common goal - and I think we've seen that it can. It might not yet be the time for a sustained, long-term reaction, but as we deepen into 4T mode (or proceed toward the real catalyst event), I think it will happen.

Over the past couple days I've seen a tendency to get back to the trivial things that have characterized this Unraveling, which may mean that this was only a precursor event. I would like it to be 4T, because I like having a national and generational goal and feeling of community. I have, myself, all but decided to enter the military. I want to be a part of the national response to this atrocity - being stuck 3000 miles from the relief efforts during this past week was almost unbearable. I thought I would share my perceptions as an example of another Xer response. I have come to appreciate the way that the leaders of the affected areas, and indeed the much-maligned President Bush, have responded to these events. It would appear that I may still be in a minority, however.

Here's an applicable article that was included in MSNBC coverage of the 9/11 attacks. I thought that it was an interesting media reaction.

** Howard Fineman: Check Please **
Boomers now have to pay, through patriotic faith and sacrifice, for the banquet
they have long enjoyed

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports...ews/630259.asp

-Kjirsti