Mr. DMMcG speaks of "generational impaction" that includes "super-elder artists that are still 'players' in the political game as we enter into T4T."

"super-elder-artists"? Silent birth years: 1924-1942. Current Silent ages: 59-75

Real super.

To see more on the Silent generation's "37% leadership" role in current crisis click here:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...orum=6&start=0






_________________
"Also, Bush surely isn't GC. The thought is to puke for." Mr. Brian Rush

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-09-18 10:32 ]</font>

On 2001-09-18 10:18, DMMcG wrote:

I noted a connection between the elections of 1856 and 1928 which had been equally bi-polarizing events...

... which would make Joe Lieberman this saeculum's answer to Alfred E. Smith.

Despite the fact that I voted for Bush (a wasted vote if ever there was one, since I live in California!), I hypothesize that if Gore's running mate had been a gentile, no way Bush carries heavily unionized West Virginia (a state which, other than the Nixon and Reagan landslides of 1972 and 1984 respectively, had not gone Republican in a presidential election since before the Depression) - and then all the dimpled chads in Florida wouldn't even have mattered.

So you're definitely onto something here!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-09-18 10:41 ]</font>

Marc -- I'm going to surprise you here and jump in on Brian Rush (and defend my friend HopefulCynic, of course, in the process) ...

Brian, your language strongly implies that (though your math is more or less on target) that something like 35-40% of the population of the U.S., and (as Red Zoners are ever-so-happy to point out) three-quarters of its land area are a "fringe group."

That, my friend, is the language of Republicans -- Spanish Civil War Republicans, that is. (Not that you'd ever catch me saying anything good about Franco either except for his clever invention of the term "fifth column" ...)

To Eric re. the role of government in 4T: though I'm a Republican, you do have a point. I've noticed that in the years since I first read T4T that my ideology has evolved from Jeffersonian to Hamiltonian -- in modern terms, libertarian to neocon (i.e., more supportive of government for great national purposes).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: doxieman on 2001-09-18 11:23 ]</font>

Is Finneman Boomer or Silent?

Good article, either way. There have been some recent trends showing that Boomers were already willing to pay up: giving up "senior citizen" discounts, paying back perks to their companies instead of getting them (someone termed them golden anvils as opposed to golden parachutes), etc. Personally, I think we've always been ready to pay up; it just required a cause worth the coin, and making the world a safer, better place is worth a great deal.

Doxieman, "fringe group" was not my term. I was refuting the claim that the red zone represented "essentially half the population."


I don't consider 35% of the population a "fringe group," but nor do I consider it "essentially half." If that's all the people who are inspired by Bush's leadership, it is not nearly enough, and if that's all that will vote for him in '04, then you better vote in the Dem primary and try to salvage something.

Richt observes? (3) We will not stop terrorism by making airport and airline security stronger. For one, there's no 100% security. More importantly, there are Amtrak trains, there are buses, sporting events, concerts, private vehicles parked in parking garages underneath public buildings -- the list goes on, especially with a little imagination.

No, we cannot completely stop terrorism. That doesn't mean we should not try. Every effort we make is to the good. And apparently terrorism, while possible, is still no easy matter.

During the Revolutionary era, the Founding Fathers were much enthused about the militia. A standing army was considered a threat to liberty, for good cause, if one examines Anglo-American history just prior to the Revolution. They attempted to construct a society where well trained, well armed part time citizen soldiers could answer most to all internal and external security problems with an absolute minimum of full time federal troops.

This fell apart during and after the Civil War. Most of the fighting was done on southern soil. The south used the same sort of militia - guerilla tactics as the Founding Fathers employed earlier. However, the northern soldiers and officers had less enthusiasm for the citizen ? guerilla when they were the federal employees attempting to coerce and subdue the local population. The northern regulars would have preferred a conventional war, with all their enemies standing in neat rows to be shot. ?If they want to (expletive deleted) fight, they should join the (expletive deleted) Army.? Not surprisingly, the southerners used whatever tactics hurt their enemy. The northerners turned to retaliatory tactics, burning civilian property indiscriminately in areas where the citizen ? guerillas were active. This resulted in considerable anger and destruction, but neither southern guerilla tactics nor the northern responses were significant in deciding the winner.

From the perspective of the soldiers in blue, lives were lost, property was lost, anger was generated, all to no significant effect. Thus, after the war, when northern veterans were put in charge of the reunified armed forces, the militia was entirely neglected. There was little to no training or funding. The militia became far more a social club than an effective force. Finally, Teddy Roosevelt took this to the extreme, stopping funding altogether, and essentially abandoning the militia?s chain of command. The National Guard was formed to fulfill the militia?s old role. While Congress still has the power to mandate training of the entire adult fit population, to require the people to arm, to ask the people to enforce laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, these functions have been considered archaic to forgotten.

One side effect of this is that US citizens no longer feel responsible towards the community. If there is a security problem, one calls professionals. One does not, for example, if one?s plane is hijacked, attempt to take out the hijackers. One would wait patiently for the government to take action, even if one is fully aware that the fighter jet couldn?t possibly arrive in time to shoot down one?s aircraft. Without training or weapons, it would be considered foolish or dangerous for an ordinary citizen to attempt to use force. Once upon a time, it was the government?s job to train citizens, it was the citizen?s right to have weapons, and it was a citizen?s duty to use these weapons in their own defense and the defense of the community.

The US has not faced a wide spread threat on its own soil since the Civil War. It might be time to examine how the Founding Father?s handled security issues, and see if any of their techniques might be useful. We might need to protect all the vital infrastructure necessary for modern civilization. If so, we are going to need lots of people. There might be a place, after all this time, for the militia to return.

It is too soon to tell. How much of a threat can the terrorists mount? How often will events occur? How serious? We shall have to see.

To answer Brian; good comments. I think yes this will be a year-long affair, but I base that on astrology, not on any thoughts about the war itself; just as I based my prediction there would be a war this summer on astrology. We'll see! I think the specific goal of this war is similar to WWI in the sense that we are making the world safe-- not for democracy this time perhaps, but for free and secure living in general. This time, of course, it's more than just a slogan, whereas it was only a slogan in WWI-- although to some degree an apt and stirring one. I guess the difference may be in what we do afterward. I'm not positive that Bush would be any more enlightened on that score than Clemenceau and Henry Cabot Lodge were.

Once the terrorists who caused this disaster are captured dead or alive, and any governments who help them disposed of, the public will not support or be wrapped up in a campaign against terrorism in general. That is an impossibility, and people will quickly see that. Most other terrorists are acting against one specific government (not ours) that oppresses them, and if we Americans are to help these situations we will have to deal with each one separately. For example, I think it's time to take the Isrealis and Palestians by the scruff of the neck and tell them to behave if they want any more support from us. Our support for Isreal is not the cause (still less the justification) for the 911 monstrosity, but by the same token it does cause Muslims and Arabs to hate us. We can't afford to molly-coddle these people any more, when the solution is so clear if they would just stop the violence and the constant reactions to each episode of violence.

I doubt whether such efforts would create or continue to arouse the kind of 4T mood or pre-4T mood we are in now. So if the economy doesn't crash (and I think it will totter for a year or so after the war), we'll sink back into 3T until the end of the decade. I'm good at predicting wars (and peace breakthroughs too), but who knows if all these predictions of mine will pan out. We'll see; all views are important to consider.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2001-09-18 13:02 ]</font>

Perhaps it's just my reluctance to see the only era I've ever known come to an end, but I just don't know if we're REALLY ready for the Fourth Turning just yet.

It seems to me that under the circumstances (our proximity to the end of the Third Turning and the fact that the 911 Attack was an almost perfect catalyst) it must have been just barely possible to temporarily scrape away the vestiges of the 3T and give us a brief glimpse of ourselves as the 4T nation we're about to become.

We're surprised by what we see; and many of us like it. But I think that in the end, like a sleeper awakened a bit too soon, we'll slip back into slumber. We'll probably return to the 3T mindset and finish out the era.

Interesting. Well, I've never believed that war would be the primary theme of this Crisis. As I said, I was surprised to see this happen this early.


I'm looking in my ephemeris now, Eric, and trying to see why you expected war this summer. Since you say "summer," instead of pinpointing a date, I assume a slow-moving planet is involved. The most significant transit I'm seeing is the Saturn/Pluto opposition that was exact on August 5 at 12 degrees Gemini/Sagittarius. It was within one degree from July 27 through August 18. There was also a Mars/Pluto conjunction more or less then, though not within transit orb. The opposition is still almost within 2 degrees.


Because of retrogradation, it will become exact again a few times in the near future. The next time is on November 2 (13 Gemini/Sag), then on May 26 '02 (16). It goes beyond a one-degree orb on June 2 and never recurs. Is this transit related to what you're seeing? What falls at 12-16 of either Gemini or Sagittarius in the U.S. chart? I'm afraid I don't know anything about it beyond putting the sun at 10 or 11 Cancer. (Maybe you should email me that info, in deference to the non-astrological.)


Anyway, I think I mentioned this before, that what your model might be predicting is not Crisis but war. I am indeed expecting an economic collapse within the next couple of years, and believe that we were heading into a global downturn when bin Laden's crew decided to complicate matters.


An interesting variable involves oil. Excluding the Persian Gulf region, the world has now about reached the oil-production peak. Will this war result in greater or lesser cooperation from the Gulf states and OPEC regarding oil production increases? I would have given oil shortages a high likelihood (and expected that THAT might have touched off war) before this happened. Now, I don't know. It could make things better or worse, depending on what happens.

Brian, you're like a walking encyclopaedia on every subject! I had no idea that you knew anything about astrology . . .

Dear Mr. Meece:

Your reference to those who use their "economic power" to prey on others sounds much like 19th Century Socialist/Communist ideology to me. The rigid economic oppresor/oppressed doctrine is outdated with my generation much more than the beliefs of John Locke. The truths that John Locke expanded on in his "Second Treatises on Government" were based upon a rational examination of human nature, which does not change (not us against them class warfare). Those archaic 18th Century ideals that you decry happen to be the foundation of our government. If you think them outdated, then we should at once rip up our constituion and other founding documents since it is their base.
Also you reference to me as an "extremist" and my grand love of "Reagan and Gingrich" (I think you have used Reagan twice to respond to me, although I never mentioned him in a post and I still don't know how Newt snuck in here) are presumptions and just cliches meant to portray me as some kind of far-right nut. You seem like an intellegent fellow, I wish that you would restrain yourself from using polarizing words like "extremist". You know practically NOTHING about me, so chill out and put away the DNC handbook.
Also, I wish you would return and read my first post and understand what I meant by bringing up the Social Security "lock box" I refered to Social Security because it was simply the most recent frivolous debate, it could have been a debate on a number of stupid things. Here is a hint of my point, for years we ran deficits and all the Social Security recipients got their check. It is silly to create a "crisis" and scare old folks when we are running a big surplus. Go back and read the post and try to understand my point.
Our constituion, that outdated 18th Century document, opens with a statement about providing for our common defense (the thing that Mr. Locke said was the primary purpose of any government). I just wish that our leaders would spend a little more time trying to understand the beauty of that document and a little less time compiling their own political power. Maybe then we would not have been caught with out pants so far down our ankles.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom1971 on 2001-09-18 15:21 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom1971 on 2001-09-18 15:23 ]</font>

I think we are all learning what the books mean, and it's a fascinating process. Yet I think we're in denial about one of the most important aspects of a Fourth Turning.

First off, I can see that we are dealing with a question of mood. Each turning has a very different mood. The Awakening will always be my favorite because it blended a real orgy of new sensations, of many different kinds, with the security, essentialy, of the High, especially after 1971 or so. In the Unravelling politics became more and more depressing, hypocritical, and shallow, while sensation was pushed to extremes. (8 baseball playoff teams instead of 4 is a good example.)

Frankly, fear may be the key emotion in a Fourth Turning--fear tempered by excitement. And that's because of the thing we are running away from--WE DON'T KNOW what is going to happen--not remotely. We don't know how many, and how bad, additional attacks may be. We don't know how many new Islamic regimes may come to power or what that will do to the Mideast and to us. We don't know what the economy will do or what other new problems will arise.

What we do know is--and so many new posters have talked about this--our lives in the last 10-15 years (which for the Xers is their whole adult life) seem meaningless. Suddenly, things are serious. That's what it is about.

I am not sure George W will have the slightest idea of what to do with the new mood. Remember, Hoover and the Republicans refused to accept that the Depression called for basic changes for three years. We were IN the Fourth Turning, but we didn't start to COPE with it until FDR. We may see the same thing again. Personally, I'm so disgusted with Washington that I wouldn't mind if we elected a whole new Congress next time. Actually, whether we have new and different candidates will be an interesting barometer.

One more comment about scandals: in a 4T, or a 1T, government is serious business. Journalists have real issues to talk about. The work that was done by party workers, lawyers working part-time, and journalists to create the Clinton scandals would be left undone. And, we'd all be much, much better for it.

David

P.S. (IMPORTANT) Bill, you used to say you were fascinated by the year 1930. Since we are about to enter it, perhaps--exactly what fascinated you? Thanks.

I swear, Eric, you're under a curse. You just can't win.


Tom, I re-read Eric's post to you, and he didn't call you an extremist. He did mention "extreme utopian libertarian ideas" or some such, but didn't even suggest that you believe in them! Please, let's not accuse the man of snap nasty characterizations when he hasn't made any.


Now, I have a few things to say in response to what you posted:


Your reference to those who use their "economic power" to prey on others sounds much like 19th Century Socialist/Communist ideology to me.


It does have a resemblance. Can you actually refute those ideas other than by associating them with political boogie-men? Are you suggesting that economic power can't be used to prey on others? Not only can it be used directly, but it usually translates into political power, and you know very well THAT can be used to prey on others.


Eric wasn't suggesting that Locke was wrong, so much as that his view was incomplete and must be modified for a modern set of circumstances. In Locke's time (or Adam Smith's), oppression came from landed aristocrats who held hereditary privileges, and not from capitalist entities. That changed as industrialization progressed and the aristocracy were defeated and supplanted. The whole theme of the Great Power Saeculum was specifically about the abuses of industrialism and capitalism. It became necessary to adopt some socialist and communist ideas, without adopting the whole program, because in part the socialists and communists were right.


Now, in the Millennial Saeculum we've had to add in environmental ideas, which cut across and to some degree refute the socialist and communist ones. As well as those of the Enlightenment. But that doesn't mean we're going to be abandoning either set of progressive notions wholesale.


Those 18th century ideas are fine ones as far as they go. They just aren't the be-all and end-all. I like having political liberty, free speech, religious freedom, and democracy. Nobody's suggesting we abandon these things (except maybe the Taliban). But let's not delude ourselves that threats to freedom can come from no other source than those recognized by Locke.

"Most are not extreme libertarians such as yourself. They are wise and know the practicalities of life".

Mr. Rush:

I don't think that I unjustly accused Mr. Meece of anything. Go back and read his post concerning me again and I think you will see what I mean.

He asserts that I think all government is bad because that's what Reagan told me. Please...give me a break. The only cliche volatile name that he didn't envoke to lable me was "Rush Limbaugh" which is coming if I continue to post here,I'm sure.

Yes, I believe that wealth is power and even creates power in politics. This is a trade off of any free society. One of the great things about our country is that that power can be harnessed, if it is what he wants, by just about anyone willing to work hard and educate himself to that purpose. This has not been true in most societies in human history. Free societies have trade-offs, but putting goverment constantly in the bussiness of correcting the inequalites of a free societies just leads to greater inequalities, especially great enequalites of power.
Bill Gates may have great power over what happens in the computer industry, but he can never point a gun at your head and force you to buy his products. Meanwhile, he (and some like him) have made our world a little nicer bu providing goods and services that we buy.
I don't see how I envoked "boogeymen" or whatever. All I did was respond to an opinion that my beliefs were so out of date that I need to wake up to the 21st Century. I simple pointed out that some of my references are mired in the 18th Century, then his might be somewhere in the 19th Century.
To be honest, my post were never meant to be an essay on political philosopy. I just expresssed an opinion (and a correct one) about the boomer silliness that has been going on in congress for too long and why it is turning people in my generation off. Despite what you may think, I have a better handle on the ideas common in my generation, and I can promise you that they are NOT rooted in debates over the best way to enlarge social programs.
I was attacked by so many cliches that I had to check to see if I wasn't sitting across the table from the president of the DNC ( or some economics college professor) on the Geraldo show.
To be honest, this is why more people typical of my generation don't come to message boards like this. We have put up with this nonsense for too long and frankly have better things to do. Now, if you will excuse me. I have to go read my little girl a story....C ya!

First of all, for any of you who are Jewish, Shonah Tovah! For any of you who I have offended by my posts, I sincerely apologize and feel bad if I have inadvertently insulted anyone or anyone's views. I find all of your posts (except Dan the Spammer and Eddie Howard) to be fascinating and informative and I love hanging out with your all on-line.

For the last 24 hours, I've been observing Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. For me, personnally, that meant attending two evening services (since I'm in the choir, I sang in both the 'early' and the 'late' services), a morning service, an afternoon "family" service, and an outdoor ceremony where you toss bread crumbs into the water.


Some notes about the services that pertain to 4T. The first is that I was very disturbed by the sermon of the Senior Rabbi. He is retiring next June and is a Silent. However, his sermon was NOT about restraining ourselves, calming down, or trying to see the other point of view. No, it was Black and White, Evil (Islamic fundamentals) versus Good (American freedom, innovation, human rights etc...) The essence of his sermon was that evil has attacked good, but good will prevail. Very 4T Grey Champion rhetoric.

Someone on this thread cited a reference to the difference in response to a terrorist attack in a 3T versus 4T -- in a 3T everyone would process it away whereas in a 4T, the significance will be blown up. Well, judging from the reaction at Shul, its certainly not being ignored or processed to death. During our Kaddish (prayers for the recent dead), we were asked to stand if we knew any of the 911 victims (fortunately, even though our synagogue is only 3 miles from the Pentagon, no members' lives were lost). I felt sorry for people who were mourning recent deaths that had nothing to do with 911. By the way, I also felt that I was saying Kaddish to our 3T.

Interestingly, in the morning service, our associate (junior) rabbi, who is a boomer, gave a much more conciliatory sermon and also invited mourners to give the names of their dead whether or not they were 911 victims. Still, even his sermon talked in terms of national unity, rather than world unity.

Also our temple is displaying the American flag on the dais for the first time in years and during the evening Rosh Hashanah service, we all sang "America the Beautiful".

In conclusion, the mood in this heavily Blue Zone liberal Jewish, Gore supporting congregation is very 4T.

I'm going to miss 3T.

George Bush isn't the GC president, nor could he be; there's no way anyone with that much character would have run, much less been elected, at what we will now call the end of the last 3T. Why would they, when the consequences were that the media would trumpet every little thing in their past back to the day they called their grade school teacher a bitch for spanking them for pulling the girls' hair.

The next election, if things continue the way they are going, will see a very different slate of candidates who will come forward after seeing that the media is willing to set aside peccadillos in favor of addressing who can pull the country together the best.

Question: it appears that modern communications make it possible for a crisis mood to precipitate much faster; does this also apply to a crisis era? The country watched the bombings live, they've been bombarded with an avalanche of articles, personal accounts, and opinions within a few days. Contrast this with how long it took people to find out as much about Pearl Harbor.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peter Scott on 2001-09-18 17:20 ]</font>

or how long it took people to find out about events during the Revolutionary War?!

I think I burned myself out with that flurry of posts right after the terrorist attacks. I just haven't felt like posting much (though I've still been reading everything!) I guess I'm suffering from a sort of hangover after the initial shock.

Jenny, good to see you posting again and Happy Rosh Hashanah! (sp?) We here at T4T were worried about you, as we know you work in Washington.

I am beginning to have doubts as to whether we are really in a 4T yet. I feel ready for it, and am a little disappointed that we may have a year or two more of 3T to go. I think this is part of the reason I haven't felt like posting much. Several people here have said that since the generations are not quite perfectly aligned yet (and because there are still so many Silents in positions of power), that we may well sink back into a 3T slumber for a little while. Despite the very dramatic change in mood that followed the event, it just doesn't seem as if we could sustain this mood for any length of time--yet.

But this spark did ignite. While the wood may have been too wet for this fire to sustain itself, it did actually create more than a mere wisp of smoke, which is all it would have produced several years, or even one year, ago.

We have all seen the trailer for the movie. It's coming soon--to a theatre near you. And it's a blockbuster.

On the other hand, perhaps we really *are* in the 4T, and this is simply the temporary "calm" that precedes the real storm. The new mood may *not* go away. Even S&H have said that the catalyst may be followed by a period of false calm, a sense that nothing more is going to happen, when, in fact, it's festering like a volcano about to erupt.

So who knows? I guess we just have to wait and see.

To Tom1971, I hope you'll continue posting on these boards, even if a few Boomers jumped on you.

I'm enjoying your posts.

>Kiki, much as I have always misliked the reasons for our participation in
>the Vietnam War, it's likely that the lessons learned there about fighting
>an unseen force will be invaluable to us in this fight.

What lessons have we learned, except that we *lose* such wars??

Kiki

Tom:


Sorry, I didn't see those words. Must have been a different post that I read. I have to admit it would be in character, but I've jumped all over Eric so many times for things like that myself that I felt obliged to defend him when it seemed he was being accused unjustly. My mistake.


One of the great things about our country is that that power can be harnessed, if it is what he wants, by just about anyone willing to work hard and educate himself to that purpose.


Insofar as most everybody has a nonzero probability of succeeding at that endeavor, I agree. There's a nonzero probability of spontaneous combustion, too. I hope you're not suggesting that the opportunities really are equal or anything close to it.


putting goverment constantly in the business of correcting the inequalites of a free societies just leads to greater inequalities


Comparing the inequalities that prevailed back when the government wasn't in that business (1920s and before) with what's existed in the MilSaec, I have to question that statement.


Bill Gates may have great power over what happens in the computer industry, but he can never point a gun at your head and force you to buy his products.


He can force you to buy his products or none, by forcing the others off the market. If you have to buy some products of that nature in order to prosper, then metaphorically he's pointing a gun to your head. Or rather, the system in general is doing that and he's taking advantage of it.


I have a better handle on the ideas common in my generation, and I can promise you that they are NOT rooted in debates over the best way to enlarge social programs.


Heh. Well, that's true enough. Though frankly in the 4T that may change.

Several quick thoughts on some of the last few pages of posts. WARNING: Many of you may well believe me to be crazy!!

* TOM1971 is very representative of the thoughts libertarians in this country. The responses to him have been alot of the typical leftish "touchy feely" stuff that, to me, intellectually devoid of substance and add little use to this forum.

* Those of you who believe the country to be 30-40% red zone are mistaken. You're looking at the wrong map. Take a look at the E2K results by county instead of state. It's overwhelmingly red. As a matter of fact, out side of the core urban centers on each coast and in Chicago, pretty much the ENTIRE COUNTRY is red.

* Just because GWB isn't as orally smooth as Clinton <--- (note feeble attempt at humor) the fact the he's not completely amoral like Clinton is exactly what we need right now, even if he does turn out be our Hoover.

* Those of you who believe that we will have an environmentally related crisis are letting your own biases and prejudices determine your thoughts (I know, we all do...). Objective climatologists are virtually unanimous in concluding that there's probably no global warming and, if there is, it's not man-made. (I know, I know, you can quote lots of "reputable" scientists full of doom and gloom, they're just wrong.) You know, if there were environmentalists and computers a hundred years ago, they'd have predicted that urban life wouldn't be possible today because there'd be no place to put the manure!!

Dear Anne, thank you for the kind post.

I apologize if I appear too thin skinned. It seems the older I get, the more annoyed I get with rehashing the same old arguments.
I think that we all need to come together a little more with the challanges that are facing us. Hey, I can play "Kumbaya" on the guitar almost as well as my Boomer hippy uncle. I don't really like lables very much. I know that Hayek liked to think of himself as an "Old Whig" that may fit me as well. I just try to read a lot of different opinions from Marx and Hagel from Hayek, Locke, Adam Smith and try to keep an open mind and be guided by common sense (I hope)But to address a few of you points..then lets move on..please.
Opportunties are never equal in the real world. That is just a condition of human existance. All people or indivuals with different talents, intellegence, and different situations. My mother was a sharecropper's daughter in the deep South. She was poor in a way that no one (or very,very few) in this country are poor today. Still, she worked hard and educated herself and she ended up in a lot better place than she started. I hope to end up even better than her. There is an antebellum home in the town that comes up for sale every few years. If things keep going well, I hope to be able to buy it for my family in a few years. It is the same home that was owned by the family that owned the land she grew up on. My wife is from Ukraine and is now in a residency program in internal medicne. She came to this country with everything she owns in one suitcase and she just got a contract for over $100,000 a year at a hospital in Louisiana. These kind of things are unheard of in most other countries and have been throughout most of history. No opportunties aren't equal, but they are real.
I don't attribute the advance of opportunties after 1920 so much to the government, but to a move from an agriculture based economy of a young nation to an industral economy where needs where met based on a free market. People were allowed to let their creativity drive them to greater wealth by providing goods and services that raised the standard of living in general. Not every one got rich, but everything got better. If you doubt, look around your house and ask where all the major inventions from the telephone, TV, computer, automoblie, ect. came from and when they came about. I don't buy the notion that the rich is such a great oppressor of the poor in this country. They get away with a lot more, I grant you.
Yes, I am a simple guy and the access of the rich many times turn my stomach, but I think that this is a small price to pay yo live in a free socitey.
Bill Gates taking advantage of his creativity is not nearly as distasteful a thing as someone taking advantage of the labors of others while that must dwell in real poverty, which is the state of many places in the world.
I don't think that a 4T will bring a greater calling for adherence to social program, it may very well bring the opposite.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom1971 on 2001-09-18 19:57 ]</font>

On 2001-09-17 19:05, William Strauss wrote:
Let me reply to Wulfe, and to any others who may be encountering this discussion and who many not have read Generations or (especially) The Fourth Turning.
[...]

Does anyone else have any thoughts for newcomers like Wulfe, who may never have read The Fourth Turning, and who may (quite reasonably) be puzzled about what it is we're all talking about?

I think there are a few tables in the section of Generation which explains the theory - the Appendix if I recall? I have all my copies lent - in terms of the cyclicity of various cultural parameters:

gender differentiation
child-rearing philosophy
personal focus
etc.

I think putting that chart as well as the chart that shows how the cohorts interact (the one with the dates along one axis and the age of the generation along the other, forming a diagonal which has the names assigned to the generations: Republicans, Silents, etc.) would be very helpful to newcomers. I also think a grouping by generational types such as: "George Washington, Mark Twain, Hemingway, Truman, Patton are all people from reactive generations such as GenX"

The key parts to helping other people understand this paradigm is to get them to quickly understand the concept of historical cyclicity, and then for them to easily see the archetypal similarities among [civic, adaptive, idealist, reactive] cultures.

Once they understand the cyclic mechanism and the idea that this really implies four seperate social cultures - which are changing behaviors on a personal level - then all the discussion about who is going to do what will make more sense.

On a technical note, scripts which search postings for jargon (Grey Champion, Transcendental) and then automatically create a link to a glossary will help.

Jessica Margolin (Bailey)

Like most T4T adherents, the WTC disaster caused me to reflect on things generational and what it all might mean in relation to an impending Fourth Turning. Being an Ass't Principal on a large high school campus, i was afforded a unique vantage point to witness the generational reaction to these events.

Our Millennial students reacted with genuine dismay, then immediately began to organize themselves to respond. Within one day, a change drive was organized by our ASB, as well as a Red-White-and-Blue Ribbon project, and a 'Teddy Bear' collection to benefit orphans of the disaster. The focus was clearly more on relief than revenge in the class discussion i witnessed.

We have lots of young Gen X teachers on our campus, most of whom impressed me with their measured (concern about ethnic reprisals)response and pragmatic (lets take care of our dead/injured and pursue justice later) approach with their students. Many had connections to people around NYC but remained calm in their efforts to locate loved ones. One 25 year old Math teacher had two close relatives who worked at the WTC, and yet she didn't call in sick, or ask to leave early, even when i notified her it would be altogether appropriate to do so.

From an Administrative standpoint, my greatest concern was with a core of Boomer (I claim Boomer status even though i'm a '61--generational identity plus two older Boomer sibs) teachers who i felt might be overzealous in their pursuit of the "Teachable Moment."

Veteran Silents reacted with nervous disbelief, almost as if history had really presented them with another Pearl Harbor, except maybe they'd have to call the shots on this one.

Clearly these are all somewhat general applications of Gen concepts, and yet they were all observable reactions to last weeks events. I couldn't help wondering, as i digested ad nauseum the media coverage and onslaught of horrific imagery, how the media--cable, satellite, and net--coverage might impact the societal reaction to the event itself. No other Turning had instantaneous worldwide coverage--no Americans on the mainland saw actual smoke billowing from the Arizona until long after it had been put out--of the nature we saw last week. My question is, how does that imagery impact peoples reaction to the event, and can this technology alter the cycle in ways we cannot as yet foresee? What role will the media play as the President pursues the politics of reprisal? As Bill suggests in his post, we probably won't have to wait long to find out...