Stonewall:
It is probably not how the Administration wants to pursue this militarily, but how the people do. I have a friend who said, basically, "Nuke Afganistan into a radioactive parking lot, even if we *don't* know it was bin Laden." If the Administration goes about this in a 3T fashion while the country wants to go 4T, they will simply be following in the footsteps of Buchanan and Hoover. Listen to what people and columnists are saying...they seem divided, but are IMHO apparently drifting in a 4T direction.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-09-19 15:40 ]</font>

What is coming next?
Will we have an attack on a nuclear power plant, to cause an American Chernobyl? Will we see attacks to collapse our communication and transportation infrastructure? What would happen if some power plants were taken out, bringing down the grid? Or if some bridges over the Mississippi were bombed, efectively cutting the country in half? Or how do we know that somebody has not already sprayed smallpox or anthrax over some city, and thousands of cases are incubating even while I type? I do not think that we have seen the worst that the terrorists are prepared to do to us in this new war.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-09-19 15:41 ]</font>

This crisis could easily, even likely, turn into a war against Islam, which would certainly qualify as a Crisis. Allah gave all the petroleum in the world to two angels to spread over the globe. One angel scattered his oil over all the planet. The other was flying over the Persian Gulf when his bag broke. Our military, as well as our society, runs on gasoline and is partially built with plastic. What will we do as America's domestic fossil fuel resources are increasingly depleted or exhausted if our enemies have the bulk of the Earth's supply?

Having been a follower of S&H for about a decade now, and having driven my wife and a few others crazy with talk of an impending crises, I feel compelled to weigh in on current events.
As I watched events unfold September 11th, I was convinced I was witnessing the catalyst which signaled the arrival of the 4T. Listening to the rhetoric, my conviction grew. However, a week removed from the initial event, I now believe we are witnessing a 3T event. It appears to me we are about to send a lot of Nomad warriors off to fight a war that will be carefully managed to keep it from spreading, producing an inconclusive result. The only change in mood I have seen is a surge in patriotism. There is significant disagreement on how extensive this "War on Terrorism" should be. I have heard everything from "turn Afghanistan to glass" to "we have brought this hatred on ourselves." I do not believe most Americans (or Europeans for that matter, because it would involve them as well) want to get into a jihad with all of Islam.
I see a very costly war being fought to remove the Taliban, prop the current leadership in Pakistan, and possibly replace Saddam. After that, America will retreat into itself, tighten its borders, and try to avoid the world until the real catalyst comes.
One last thought on this first post. How many members of the media do you think have read S&H and are, like most posts here, seeing these events as the catalyst for the 4T?

Tom,

Thanks. I thought about that after I posted. In earlier cycles, the people have led the government. If the people adopted a 4T mood and government did not fall in line, then presidents were replaced. It was straightforward. What disturbs me about our present time is that we really do not have an adversarial press anymore. Sure, they are contrary on the petty stuff but they never seem to oppose administrations on the important stuff. I see increasing signs of a government-media complex and, if the major media are now essentially propaganda outlets for whatever administration happens to be in power, then this may affect historical transitions in strange and hitherto unknown ways. But I have not thought this through yet so I will not speculate.

For whatever it is worth, this first-wave 13er shares your friend's sentiments. I have had it. It is time to clean house over there and pull this thing out by the root. The only thing those people understand is raw power. If we wring our hands and consult with think tanks before making every carefully measured move, then they will destroy us as we vacillate. It is that simple. Unfortunately, our current strategies are being determined by hand wringers who wouldn't know how to make a bologna sandwich without first consulting with a think tank. It is time for them to rise above themselves. If they do not do so, then we are really in trouble. 2004 cannot come soon enough and, even then, we of course will not be offered any candidates worth a damn. If you thought the Civil War cycle was bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

On 2001-09-18 22:23, Craig '84 wrote:
I wrote that I felt like puking. Well, I did. When I came back here the other day to read the responses and the latest posts I felt only worse. I felt so bad I was actualy throwing up in the toilet afterwards. It was that bad. I've only felt worse and worse about this whole 3T and 4T thing over the last week. These responses on the board are just confirming the worst, the worst imaginible 4T nightmares. Now my friends tell me that something's really wrong with me. I keep telling them I didn't know anyone who was involved. I'm the only one who has the 4T worries, no one else understands the significance of this. Now I just sit there wishing I hadn't come to one little board on the Internet several months ago that referred me to one little book. "Ignorance is bliss"

-Craig

The truth may set you free, but it also hurts!

I don't think anything is wrong with you that isn't wrong with half the people in the country right now. This event has ramifications that we cannot even begin to comprehend at this point. At the very least, we have two decades of upheaval and hardship. At the worst--well, I won't go there. The fact you're at an impressionable age makes it that much harder to face.
But there is comfort to be drawn from all this. If all ends well, a glorious High and then a new Awakening will follow. In all likelihood you will still be around to witness both of these. This 4T doesn;t have to be a bad thing overall. Think of it as a birth of something new, and these are the labor pains.

Perhaps you are more sensitive than many people. But crazy? No.

The fighters fighting the first battles will be young GenXers, some of them Millennial "converts". Their "managers" will be 30s GenX, a bit young for the job, but they will suffice.

To those of you fretting over a Civil War anomaly: don't get your panties in a bunch. The cycles have been 18 years or less lately. The jury is still out as to whether this is too early to be good. The board seems to be evenly split as to whether this is the 4T or not, and also evenly split as to whether the alignment is good or not.

Things can "push" the alignment in good or bad ways. Fortunately, our president seems to be pushing VERY hard with his words towards a 4T solution. Mark his (possibly misquoted) words:

"We're gonna smoke 'em out of their holes, boys."

"I'm not going to use a $2 million missile to target a $10 tent and hit some camel in the butt. This is going to be decisive."

"Wanted: dead or alive."

4T words coming from the bully pulpit can have a huge effect on the national psyche. Is Bush our Gray Champion? Probably as close as we're gonna get. He may not have the brains, but he does have the fire, and that's what's needed now.

And the good civic kids are all pulling together, even little kids are raising money for relief funds. The older Millies are signing up for the draft voluntarily, and I'll bet they sign up for police, fire, FBI, and CIA jobs in droves.

Are we there? Only time will tell, but my dollar to a dime we are, and the alignment isn't that far off that we'll screw it up.

So do your part:

RESIST THE SILENTS! PUSH FOR VICTORY!

If we don't, it means bad things for our psyche. (Not to mention the possibility of the nutcases successfully making a nuke!)

Craig, I realized that I probably missed your point altogether in my last post. Everything I said is true, of course, but in going back and reading over your other posts, I remembered that what bothers you the most about the 4T is the end of all things 3T, particularly its varied and free-for-all culture.

While I am very happy to see the end of rudeness, selfishness, and greed dominating the culture (and even show my Boomerishness by being one of those "tacky" people who went out and bought an American flag for my house and car, after never being especially patriotic before), I admit there are a lot of things about the 3T I will miss (and already miss). Especially its wild & crazy culture. I am saddened by the apparent death of rock and roll (I said it--so shoot me!), a musical form that hasn't spawned any new movements or anything truly original or inspiring for at least 4-5 years. I agree with you that good popular music (at least rock and rap) requires, no, DEMANDS, individualism. I will miss the endless variety 3T society offers (though not the mental seasickness it produces!), but I guess at my age, this is offset by relief--relief at not having to put up with the rudeness, selfishness, and "nothing is sacred" mentality that is rampant in a 3T. Besides, I have plenty of CDs and can always rent 3T films to watch on my VCR. There is enough out there now, from both the 2T and 3T, that you would never run out of music to listen to and stuff to watch, even if you spent 24/7 of the next 20 years doing nothng *but* that.

But I know if I were 17 years old and the 4T was just starting, it would bother the hell out of me too. Just as you're coming of age and wnating to explore new territories, society suddenly wants to prune your branches and snip your buds. It must be hard.

But you always have yourself, remember. It might sound trite, but you can create your own realities. Even in a 4T.



_________________
Insanity is the only sane way to cope with an insane world.--RD LANGE

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2001-09-19 17:56 ]</font>

I do think that we may be missing some obvious points. The administrations response is a 3T response couched in 4T language. That's what conservatives do and conservatism will be discredited for doing so. If you want to find an obvious GC, you needn't look any farther than prophet archetype Osama bin Laden. His nomad archetype followers were the pilots of the hijacked planes such as Mr. Atta who has been deified by the American media. Bin Laden's heroes have been strapping on backpacks filled with explosives and boarding busses in Israel. Remember, Hitler was a prophet too!! DMMcG

Its not such an easy matter to fight a war with Afghanistan. If we could make a case to go after Hussein we'd do that, we *know* we can win in Iraq.

Afghanistan is a land-locked coutnry about the size of Texas. Much of it is mountainous (like Swizterland). And if you look at a map of Europe during WW II you'll see that Switerland was right smack in the middle of Nazi territory, yet was unconquered.

The Pashtan people (the tribe most closely associated with the Taliban) have about 2.5 million males of military age. They could conceivably mobilize an army of hudnreds of thousands. There are also many thousands of trained guerillas from other countries already in Afghanistan.

Just how large of a force would be necessary to beat these guys? My understanding is a 10:1 advantage is needed to take on well-placed defensive positions in difficult terrain. I'd think millions of men would be needed, which would require drafting a huge chunk of our youth and a massive hike in taxes. Air strikes with conventional munitions will likely accomplish little against deeply dug-in guerilla bases. Besides we have far too few planes to carry out meaningful attacks against so many "hard" targets (we would need tens of thousands like we had in WW II). It would bankrupt the country trying to buy even a fraction of what we would need.

I can't see how one can conquer the country without using battlefield (tactical) nuclear weapons, probably hundreds of them. Does Bush have this in mind? Maybe.

If not, then the U.S. is going to need a lot of co-operation from other countries to wage this "War on Terrorism". And I doubt that we will find useful allies (i.e. those nearby) that will be willing to help us conquer Afghanistan. So that option is out if we eschew going nuclear.

The US still has a very good set of cards here. We can make a very good case that the weapon used on the US on 9/11/01 was a fixed wing "flying munition" similar to the German V-1 (buzz-bomb) of WW II, but much more powerful, with a much more sophisticated guidance system, plus stealth capabilities. A very formidible weapon indeed. The number of casualties it can (and did) inflict is beyond anything that can be achieved with conventional munitions (I doubt an air-to-air missile or even the largest conventional bomb could have brought the WTC down). It should therefore be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Just an an ordinary automobile becomes a murder weapon when used to kill someone, a commerical aircraft becomes a WMD when employed in an act of war (military action). Acceptance of this interpretation then permits the US to employ tactical nukes (directed against military targets) in a war on Afghanistan, should that option prove to be necessary.

To give an idea of what a tactical nuke is like, they range in yield from 1 to several hundred ktons. Only the lowest yield weapons would be useful. A one kiloton explosion would create a ~100 meter crater as compared to a 1 km crater produced by a 1 megaton explosive. One hundred one kton explosions could be used to severely damage or destroy one hundred small-scale Taliban bases with only 1/10 the explosive effects of a single 1 megaton strategic weapon. Bases that are too large for tactical nukes would be worthwhile attacking by conventional means, but one wouldn't expect the Taliban to maintain such nice concentrated targets. They would likely be widely scattered and dug in. Near simulataneous use of hundreds of small 1-3 kton munitions against hundreds of dug-in bases that have been painstakingly located by a combination of ground intelligence, aerial survellience and satelite imagery could concievably be used to break the back of a countryside-based guerilla war.

I am not advocating this approach, I am simply pointing out that there is reason to believe that the US could wage a successful war against Afghanistan using tactical nukes *without* the release of unacceptable amounts of fallout onto neighboring countries, which almost certainly would be the case if the US were to "nuke them til they glow" as some here have advocated. The former is a credible strategy, while the latter is not.

Other nations like Russia, China and India, plus our NATO allies can reasonably expect that the US *might* go ahead and use this approach if they cannot offer us a strategy for carrying out the War on Terrorism that meets the US need for security and vengeance. This gives the US enormous leverage. I suspect that President Bush will be able to work out an acceptable strategy without resorting to the use of nukes.

Stonewall is a 13er...funny, so is the friend I mentioned!
I just spoke to another friend...he has "connections" to the intelligence community and has been pretty good at telegraphing things to me before they happened (too bad I did not talk to him in early September...). He is worried about a second wave of attacks, possibly this weekend. For example, he points out how easy it would be for a suicidal terrorist to use VX nerve gas to take out a few thousand spectators at a major sporting event. If another big event occurs, even *he* would push for nukes...and that's something!

Hmm. Look at WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah's column today, pasted here for educ purposes only:

Knowing our enemies
? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=24563

There's a significance to the Sept. 11 attack date I have yet to see explored by anyone else. So, I guess it's up to me.

Some have suggested it is linked with President Carter's Camp David Accords. Final agreement was reached Sept. 12, 1978. That might, indeed, be part of the story. But there's more that is not being reported widely.

In September of 1970, Arab terrorists linked with Yasser Arafat hijacked four airliners in one day. Sound familiar? I bet you thought it had never been done before. They moved three of the jets to an airfield in Jordan, where they were blown up after releasing hostages.

The incident was the culmination of deteriorating relations between Arafat's many terrorist cells and Jordan's King Hussein, who embarked on a brutal, ruthless and absolutely necessary campaign to expel Arafat's guerrillas from his country. So terrible was Hussein's one-day campaign, many Palestinian guerrillas crossed the Jordan River and surrendered to Israelis rather than face certain death at the hands of the Jordanian army, which killed more than 3,000.

The date of that one-day campaign? Sept. 12, 1970.

A faction of Arafat's terrorists took on the name Black September in remembrance of this mini-war. Later, Black September guerrillas became well-known for their murderous campaign at the Munich Olympics (in September of 1972) and for the kidnapping of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and Charge d' Affairs George Curtis in Khartoum, Sudan, and their subsequent murders in 1973.

Why isn't anyone mentioning this apparent connection to Black September? Are they afraid it leads directly back to Yasser Arafat? Does the West have too much invested in Arafat as a partner for peace?

We do hear about Osama bin Laden. But what we hear and read reported seems to be selective coverage. As only WorldNetDaily reminded readers last week, just prior to the Black Tuesday attack, there were international news reports out of Europe, Moscow and elsewhere that bin Laden had actually been named as commander in chief of the Taliban's armed forces. The Taliban Party rules Afghanistan, and, as would be expected, denied the appointment. How could such a direct connection between the terrorist and the nation-state of Afghanistan be overlooked or soft-pedaled?

There's more. The Bush administration took the strange position of asking China to help the U.S. in its campaign against terrorism. Why was that request strange?

John Pomfret of the Washington Post reported on page 27 of his paper two days after Black Tuesday that China signed a "memorandum of understanding" with the Taliban, giving Beijing the "closest relationship with the isolated Kabul regime of any non-Muslim country," according to a senior Western diplomat.

When was that extraordinary agreement announced? Sept. 11, 2001 ? Black Tuesday.

I don't know about you, but my head is spinning from these connections ? from these buried facts, from these too-coincidental links, from this widening web of intrigue.

It was almost laughable when Bill Clinton returned to New York last week and was confronted by a reporter asking why and how his administration had failed to capture or kill bin Laden, the most-wanted terrorist on earth for the last eight years.

Clinton said he almost got him in 1998, when he bombed Afghanistan. Here are the facts about Osama bin Laden and that raid, as I explained at the time.

Bin Laden's family is one of the richest of the rich ? worth an estimated $5 billion. Osama himself is said to command a fortune worth at least $300 million. The family does millions of dollars of business with the U.S. government, having built an Air Force base for us in Saudi Arabia after bin Laden was blamed for blowing up the Khobar Towers in 1996.

So let's get this straight. Osama blows up our facilities, and his family gets the contract for rebuilding them. Do you get the feeling there is more going on here than meets the eye?

About Clinton's raid on Afghanistan? Bin Laden survived the attacks, having, apparently, been tipped off in advance. With such connections and resources, it hardly seems surprising.

Do we really know our enemies? Does the United States really want to understand them? With so much focus on bin Laden, at the expense of Afghanistan, China, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Saudi Arabia, you have to wonder just how serious Washington is about this war on terrorism.

******************************************
Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.

Re Brian's assertions concerning the red/blue zones. You really need to check your numbers. There's many suburban counties that voted for Bush. As a matter of fact the TOTAL population of the red counties exceeds that of the blue counties by about 55%-45%. Your argument that the "cultural" redzone is 30% just doesnt' jibe w/ the numbers. It may or may not be correct, because the "religous right" is a subjective concept and means different things to different people.

This whole "zone" thing just has very little relevance to our discussion of just when the 4T is/has starting/ed. Which brings up a question I have. If we use the seasonal analogy to the turnings, I'd like to know what everyone's guess as to what the "date" is right now. I'm thinking about the week after Thanksgiving, i.e. Winter's clearly on the way, but isn't quite here yet. What does everyone else think, 1st of October? Christmas? What??

Evidence we are still in the 3T:

Tonight, coming home on the MetroBus, we were in the right of two left-turn lanes at one of those big suburban Virginia intersections. The light turned green and our driver started forward. The cars in front of us went through the intersection, but our bus driver, a young African-American woman, stopped when she heard a siren approaching from behind. (Exactly what she was supposed to do, of course.)

I heard, sotto voce, from behind me and across the aisle, a man saying "Come on, go through the light. It's green. I can't believe this! Etc." The ambulance then passed us in the left lane and we went forward and stopped at the now-red light. The mumbling continued. I turned to look. The culprit appeared to be of the Silent Gen, for what that is worth.



_________________
In wildness is the preservation of the world. -- Thoreau

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ted Hudson '47 on 2001-09-19 19:30 ]</font>

Well, I've had a most interesting day with respect to Turnings.

I had my normal three-hour class this morning, in which my students--midgrade officers at the Naval War College--discussed the situation for a while, before we went to our real topic, the wars of German unification. Then I had a noon meeting to hear a colleague give a report on some research. Instead, the chairman opened up. The Admiral who heads the school asked him to draw up a list of questions the higher-ups should be thinking about in planning our response. He said he would give us his typed list and he wanted replies from us within 90 minutes.

The guy who was going to present his research--of which he is justifiably proud--said, well, if you want that response, why not give it to us right now? I suggested we all take a look at it and have an open discussion. So we did. It was a fascinating discussion that brought out some real nightmare scenarios--for instance, suppose an Islamic group overthrows the Pakistani government if they help us? After all, Pakistan already has nukes. We didn't try to find answers, we posed questions, which is what we try to teach our students to do.

Then I went to my generations in film elective, which goes from the last crisis through the current 3T. The students (whom I hadn't seen for two weeks) had been deeply affected by what had happened and the theory suddenly made more sense. Then we watched The Apartment--about the High. Then I had a private talk with a student who said one or two of her friends said they had felt euphoria in the wake of the attack.

Then I realized, suddenly, what turnings are all about, in a new way. Bill and Neil, please take note.

In the High society was focused on--really addicted to--certain principles and ways of living. These included ever larger cars, lots of tobacco and alcohol, uniforms and strict roles for men and women (check Leave it to Beaver), perfect, respectful, bright children (lots of them), new highways, etc. When the boys came home from war this was all that everyone wanted. But by the early 1960s, it was getting old. And suddenly, in the mid-60s, it got VERY old. It didn't make any sense to the younger generations any more.

Along came the Awakening, which I've written a lot about here, and suddenly, we saw the world and ourselves in entirely new ways--with or without new drugs--we looked different, dressed different, related differently, etc., etc. It was the most exciting time in my life and I've never experienced anything--movies, sports, love--as intensely as I did then.

I will pass over the transition to the Unravelling. But what has happened in the Unravelling? We have a new set of addictions, which include speculating in stocks, making obscene amounts of money, giving less of it to the government, claiming victimhood, emphasizing ethnic pride (more on that later), cursing, raunchy jokes, sex scandals of all kinds, berating each other's values, extreme political partisanship, SUVs, cost-cutting throughout our society, and 24/7 shopping.

I honestly believe that in the wake of this trauma, all of those are very rapidly going to get old, too. Some of them already have. And today, I had a fascinating experience watching The Apartment. I had watched it every year for several years, but I saw it far more clearly today. I noticed many new things, I was tuned into every move the characters made (it's wonderfully active.) My perceptions were heightened again, torn out of the rut I was in. Almost like way back when.
I was very excited to read Lydia's post--thanks--because I think she's the first elected official who has ever posted here. A few minutes later it occurred to me that her post was, therefore, another unmistakeable symbol that something has changed. Lydia, the successful politicians will be the ones who can be less partisan, more practical, and ride the new mood. Get that Amtrak extension to Portland done, fast--it's going to be needed. Here Amtrak, a public service, was scheduled for death by the Republican Congress; now I suspect it will mushroom.

On another front--I don't think I've ever mentioned this, but when you cross the border from Rhode Island (my home) to Connecticut on I-95, you find that this portion of the road is named "Jewish War Veterans Memorial Highway." Some time later it becomes "African American War Veterans Memorial Highway." This is incredibly 3T and it makes me want to throw up. I hope to live to see the whole highway renamed "Veterans Highway." (I'm half Jewish myself, by the way--that isn't the point.)

I am frightened too. I can imagine many things going wrong; the government may not get in sync before the next election, if then. (It's hard for me to believe this incredibly 3T administration--TOTALLY 3T in domestic policy--can change its spots.) But I suddenly realize it had to happen and it's going to be good for us. We had pushed existing trends WAY beyond the law of diminishing returns. That doesn't mean we don't take some good things away from every turning; only that they nearly always eventually go too far, and then, as the old saying goes, it's time for a change.

I think we are lucky to have Powell helping to guide the situation. He seems to have his pen and paper firmly in hand planning things out. But sometimes Silents do look over their pads and incite with a few brief words then scurry back to the drawing boards. Haven't seen that happen yet. No Compromisers in grand degrees.

As for divining a prophecy, in remains to be seen what happens. I see indictors that could go bad for us, like the talk of curtailing civil liberties, but nothing is being inacted yet. Now we wait to see how the war pans outs as our troops start to leave for the Middle East.

No biggies here. Just a babbling from an Xer.

What I mean by "true" red zoners is the only thing with significant political meaning beyond the results of E2K itself. Technically, the "red zone" represents all those counties that voted for Bush. But that's significant only because it covers so much rural territory and so little urban territory, and that in turn is meaningful because the values of the religious right are stronger in the red zone than they are in the blue.


So what I mean by "true red zoners" is simply the religious right. Those who voted for Bush for some other reason (such as yourself) do not qualify.



That is PART of the big picture. Other parts include the environmentalism that, despite your dismissal of it, is an issue of the survival of civilization, not a Culture War issue.


OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious that abortion, gay rights, gun control, and capital punishment don't belong in the same room with either the war on terrorism or the coming struggle over resources and sustainability. Those are among the real culture wars issues. And I am quite prepared to declare a cease-fire on all of them. As a matter of fact, I think the entire blue zone would be. And indeed, has been prepared for such a cease-fire for quite a number of years.

One thing about you, Brian, is you use facts in your arguments without resorting to name-calling, which too many posters on other boards do.

I still stand by by 50/50 assessment, but you've made me rethink it just a little. I should probably reframe my statement just a bit.

Obviously, not everyone who voted for George Bush was religious right. As for running as a moderate Republican, it would be more precise that he was deliberately vague, allowing the Religious Right (let me abbreviate to RR for convenience) to tell themselves he was with them, and allowing the 'moderate' Republicans to tell themselves that he was stringing along the RR. Whether this was honest or not is debatable, what it accomplished is unclear.

Culturally, I suspect I am defining religious right more broadly than you are. I earlier called them Christian Fundamentalists, which term should probably be reserved for the group you call the religious right.

Many so-called 'moderate' Christians believe basically the same thing that the Fundamentalists do, with less passion about it. Many of them tend to see the Fundamentalists as alarmists, or somewhat embarrassing for one reason or another, but it's not because their actual beliefs are all that different.

And herein lies the rub. The reason the 'outer' believes are fairly calm about things is that they don't perceive their opposite numbers as a threat, for various reasons. The more successful the secular world becomes (in those areas that conflict with Christian belief) the more you'll tend to see the 'outer' believers line up with the hard-core. It's not a great mystery why, really. I am quite sure that the same effect would function on the other side as well, if the RR started looking as if they were going to gain full control.

I had an argument with today with two members of the RR, and their basic attitude was that Falwell and Robertson were the only ones with the guts to tell the truth as it is. One of them said that if the people that don't believe don't want worse to come, they'd better get in Church and quit doubting, before God destroys America! They both further maintained that "almost everyone" believes the same thing in America, and only a tiny fringe holds that this basic Christian beliefs are not infallible.

The thing you have to realize, though, is that neither is either stupid or ignorant, nor is either vicious. They were quite friendly and confident about it, and if you grant their initial assumption of Biblical literal infallibility, their arguments make perfect sense.

In many ways, in fact, they sounded like a perfect mirror image of Brian Rush's arguments, sometimes almost to the syllable!

_Both_ sides mistake the other for a small and inconsequential minority, Brian, and both are dead wrong.

On 2001-09-19 14:11, Lis '54 wrote:
Ummm...what you guys are forgetting is that other "zone" that hasn't voted in 25 years.
Neither candidate in the last several elections has gotten "half" the vote, but rather a third of the eligible vote.

The main point about the map of the red and blue zones (I thought) was to show that people of like political thinking are drifting together and away from those of opposite political thinking. 30-40 years ago, the color divide would not have been between heartland and coasts like it is today; it would have been a divide between age groups.

It's true that like tends to run with like over time. I sometimes think that the essential difference between Red and Blue is that Red has a stable and fairly comprehensive system of religious beliefs in place, while Blue has several competing ones, giving the illusion of tolerance, since no one is able to dominate the others yet. That may be my cynical side, though.

As for the people who don't vote, at the risk of sounding harsh, politically they don't count. In the U.S., failure to vote is a vote, and like it or not it's read as "I don't care, so I don't matter."

That may not be the intention, but that's how it's usually read.

If a person has occasion to call on his member of Congress for some reason, you can take it to the bank that they check to see if he is a registered voter, and if he has voted of late. If a regular voter (of your own OR the opposite party) and a non-voter are competing for attention, the outcome is never in doubt.

I suspect, in fact, that Brian and I are in pretty close agreement on this point.

That is PART of the big picture. Other parts include the environmentalism that, despite your dismissal of it, is an issue of the survival of civilization, not a Culture War issue.


OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious that abortion, gay rights, gun control, and capital punishment don't belong in the same room with either the war on terrorism or the coming struggle over resources and sustainability. Those are among the real culture wars issues. And I am quite prepared to declare a cease-fire on all of them. As a matter of fact, I think the entire blue zone would be. And indeed, has been prepared for such a cease-fire for quite a number of years.

Brian, the environmental situation is _both_ a vital issue for survival and a culture wars issue. Despite what is commonly misperceived on Side Blue, Side Red is not indifferent to the environment.

(By the way, a lot of the thrust of my arguments is less about which side is right than about the various ways they utterly misread each other.)

But there is widespread disagreement about the _nature and degree_ of the danger, both between Red and Blue and within Red and Blue.
If the environment becomes a key 4T issue, and it well may, these disagreements will have to either be compromised somehow or one faction will be forced to suppress the others, with all the risk of nasty side-effects that implies.

As for a truce on the Culture Wars, it's already partly in effect. But the Red Zone is uneasy with it, and I think Blue is as well. If this is an early-stage 4T, it's one with the 3T still lingering like a cloudy tinge in water.

From the Red Zone point of view, the perception (rightly or wrongly) is that the Blue Zone ideas on most of the Culture Wars are currently ascendent, and a fear exists that the 4T could freeze a truce in place unbreakably, or at least for a very long time.

Let me pose a question: suppose the Red Zoners demanded one of the issues you mentioned be resolved their way, as a show of good faith, just one. Which one would you be willing to yield permanently on, for the sake of 4T unity? (Not just Brian, anyone feel free to answer.)

On 2001-09-19 21:02, HopefulCynic68 wrote:


Let me pose a question: suppose the Red Zoners demanded one of the issues you mentioned be resolved their way, as a show of good faith, just one. Which one would you be willing to yield permanently on, for the sake of 4T unity? (Not just Brian, anyone feel free to answer.)

As a Boomer Blue Zoner (living in a nice Progressive corner of an even nicer Progressive State on the "Fourth Coast") I would give the abortion ? back to the States to decide in their several ways. HTH

The fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that Musharraf's government could be overthrown and replaced by an Islamic fundamentalist regime in control of those weapons--triggered by an american presence in the region--scares me to death. Question to all you Fourth Turning fans: Is Pakistan now entering into its own Fourth Turning making the likihood of such a revolution suceeding all the more probable? Pakistan's last Fourth Turning may have been 1920-1947, from the rise of Gandi and the passive resistance movement to the formation of Pakistan in '47. A new saeculum may be upon us.

Pakistan's saeculum is the same one the whole Indian sub-contient shares. They are on the same saeculum as most of the world, however about 3 years behind North Americia, on par with Australia and Britain. Their Last Crisis ended with India being partioned into three countries. The whole sub-contient is in a very jiggery late unravelling mood. :sad:

Here's a poser for a public discussion: would a group bent on destroying the US benefit from knowing generational & cyclic theories of history?

Another question: is there any reason to think that other, non Islam extremists would join against the US? I'm thinking euro-anarchists & Columbia.

To Tom:
Stop worrying about what label is put on you. If I were you, I would worry about advocating a position that is extremely worn over and naive. Deal with the issue: why do you oppose government action to help the poor, when private charity won't do the job, and when you yourself or any one of us may need government security programs some day?

Why make charges that those who seek to shore up our Social Security System are just politicians using the issue to seek their own power? Those charges are very unfair and insulting, and so you shouldn't wonder if someone reacts to you. Free market economics is not the solution to all problems. Do you believe it is, as it seems to me you do from your posts? If you write as though you do, then don't be surprised if someone labels you an extremist.

If the 4T is upon us, it is truly time for all of us to put aside right-wing libertarian economics. That just won't wash when we have to pull together as a nation and help each other survive. We are not separate individuals; we are all in this together.