Marc is really beginning to worry me. I am perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong about 911 being the catalyst, and other people have posted decent arguments against this thesis. Marc's got some good points, too, but he is so emotional that he reminds me of a psychic on television here who says that others have suffered for their beliefs and so must she. I almost expected him to invoke Galileo next. But instead, his posts are becoming riddles, when they do not verge on Archie Bunker. Marc, people suggested the dotcom bubble, the election, and other events as the catalyst, but 911 has left all those in the dust. I understand your calculations say that the kindling is still wet, but this was a heck of a spark. Turnings are like breathing...sneezes, burps, hiccups and yawns are possible. We even had a Year Without a Summer in the early 19th Century, so even seasons can be upset. And the Civil war is an existance proof that 4Ts *can* come early. If you are afraid of Chinese "interesting times"...well, nothing much you can do about it, and they will come in a few years, anyway, even if you are right. Please take a deep breath when you get so upset...or you might have a heart attack before the real catalyst!

Jenny:
I found a site that mirrors what you have suggested in prior postings.
http://www.nimn.org/

On 2001-10-19 20:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

True, but the jokes were about his being a crook. Those types of jokes are not unique, they go back to the Founding. As far as I know, the sort of 'dirty smirk' jokes that Clinton inspires are unique in American presidential history.

[quote]

There have been a few other presidents who've been similarly cynicized. Three come to my mind who had a similar amount. There were only newspapers back in the old days, true, but since it was the only source of news, more people read them religiously or if they couldn't read, had others read to them. Then, tell two friends and so on... So, I would think the effect would parallel today.

As has been noted, Grover Cleveland did earn his share of smutty press, and it was vehement and snicker-y. However, Cleveland worked his way back to a respectable level of admiration, after it was spun (or the truth discovered, which ever way one believes) that he performed a charitable and honorable duty by caring for both the child and the emotionally disturbed mother. (It was suggested at the time that she was technically a nymphomaniac!)

Thomas Jefferson had more than his share of bitter and bitterly cynical criticism attributed to him for Sally Hemmings. It began even before he became president, and popped up again after his death.

Andrew Johnson had everything lobbed at him. He seemed at times to be equally crotchety in response. We know what happened to him.

To a much less degree, Jackson and Wilson had missles lobbed their way. Wilson got engaged in office after his first wife died.

In every case, based on what I've come across, all of the above with the possible exception of Wilson had these troubles in times of political turmoil of one sort or another (partisan arguments or position plays). Not to excuse the behavior in question, but some may have had it used like a weapon against them for political purposes and it could have skewered the truth a bit. Others got free rides because politics was humming right along.

On 2001-10-19 22:23, sv81 wrote:
__________________________________________________ _______________

i n f o p a l - The Independent Palestinian Information Network
__________________________________________________ _______________


Sharon to Peres: "Don't worry about American pressure;
we control America"

Occupied Jerusalem: 3 October, 2001 (IAP News)

An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly
session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and
his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly
yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we
control America."

According to Israel radio (in hebrew) Kol Yisrael, Peres warned
Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American
requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger
Israeli interests and "turn the US against us."

At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres,
saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do
this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear,
don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish
people control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon
against saying what he said in public because "it would cause us
a public relations disaster."

(c) IAP News E-mails: iapinfo@iap.org

InfoPal - The Independent Palestinian Information Network
A subsidiary of PalVision Ltd., P.O.Box 25658, Nicosia, Cyprus
Telefax +44-870-131-2672,
Email: info@palvision.net
In Palestine:info@infopal.org

IAP? The Islamic Association for Palestine? Now there's an unbiased source. While the rhetoric is relatively restrained on their website, the anti-Israeli agenda is quite clear. To use another analogy, this is an exclusive scoop on American domestic political developments circa 1967 as provided by Radio Hanoi. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find the source or the story credible. I'd believe this story if it came from an Israeli paper (free press in that country, uniquely in the middle east) or from a credible international source like AP, Reuters, BBC. From the IAP or David Duke, no.

On 2001-10-19 18:06, choselh wrote:

I thought turnings were something that have to happen to everyone at the same time.

No, they don't. Summer came earlier to the Coasts than they did to the heartland, and the first frosts came to the heartland several years ago. Remember, the spark or catalyst is simply the point at which the balance tips over to the next Turning.

911 was a very big spark. Bear in mind we may have multiple sparks. We may see issues re-emerge in the near future, such as protests against globalization. Our devisiveness, are indicated by election 2000. In the meantime we may see renewed terrorist attacks on our soil (either domestic origin or imported) or abroad.

911 WAS IT! DON'T DISCOUNT WHAT IS SO REAL, JUST BECAUSE IT IS SO OBVIOUS.

Some people don't think it's merely the end of the 3T, but the end of civilization. Check out the prolific musings of PM, a fellow who goes by the name of "HALIFAXCAPITAL" on his following newsgroup:

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/marketthoughts

If that's not enough of a doom-monger for you, I don't who what is. Basically he says that the US financial system is a fragile and unstable house o' cards ready to topple, and that the social mores and sense of community that got us through the Depression alive are now largely gone. He says that when the next Depression comes (hint hint soon), society as we know it will break down and go into downward spiral.

PM says that the best way to prepare is to get clear of large urban areas, find yourself a good, large plot of land with a well-defedable perimeter, and stock up on guns, ammo, antibiotics, and non-perishable food. Also you need to stock up on crop seeds.

So he says, anyway. I don't think I believe him; obviously he's nuts. OR IS HE???!!! :

On 2001-10-20 11:58, jcarson71 wrote:
Some people don't think it's merely the end of the 3T, but the end of civilization.

Check out some of Robert Reed's posts saying we're about to enter a Dark Age. Talk about gloom and doom!

My suspicions: we are hearing only the sugar-coated, cherry-topped tip of the iceberg. Looks like a floating piece of cake...not.

There's stuff going on that, if word got out, it would scare you schliztless. Like, what if nuclear power plants are being targeted by the terrorists? Would it be pleasant if you lived a few down miles downwind? Do you think a Chernobyl-style disaster or two would harm the way we do business here in the US? Maybe so.

On 2001-10-20 11:58, jcarson71 wrote:
Some people don't think it's merely the end of the 3T, but the end of civilization. Check out the prolific musings of PM, a fellow who goes by the name of "HALIFAXCAPITAL" on his following newsgroup:

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/marketthoughts

If that's not enough of a doom-monger for you, I don't who what is. Basically he says that the US financial system is a fragile and unstable house o' cards ready to topple, and that the social mores and sense of community that got us through the Depression alive are now largely gone. He says that when the next Depression comes (hint hint soon), society as we know it will break down and go into downward spiral.

PM says that the best way to prepare is to get clear of large urban areas, find yourself a good, large plot of land with a well-defedable perimeter, and stock up on guns, ammo, antibiotics, and non-perishable food. Also you need to stock up on crop seeds.

So he says, anyway. I don't think I believe him; obviously he's nuts. OR IS HE???!!! :

jcarson, its always a good idea to have some emergency supplies around because you never quite know exactly when the "nuts" are going to be right. but usually you can tell how nutty they are by how loud and vociferous and uncompromising they are about their opinions.

besides, did anyone ever wonder why, if this guy really and sincerely believes what he is saying, what he is doing living so close to the nation's capital still? after all, that would certainly be target numero uno? why hasn't he moved out into the hinterlands into the comfort of his custom made bomb shelter if the end of western civilization as we know it is so imminent?

this same type was everywhere to be found back in the early 60s after the cuban missile crisis, the 70s during the oil embargo, and the mid 80s just after the 87 crash. and if you go back and look at the end of every other economic downturn you will find them running amok then as well. they have always reminded me of captain ahab from moby dick, beckoning to everyone else to come and join them and drown on the back of the great white whale ( or bull in this case!).

i have maintained for years now that valuations in the markets will remain high by historical standards because of the absence of a gold standard for the first time in history. there is no longer a monetary "weight" so to speak to bring them down to those levels. but eventually circumstances will become so bloated that it will bring them down to levels even more extreme that that suggested by historical standards. i just don't think we have reached that point just yet and historically there are usually precedents for such an event that have just not occurred yet.

i have stated before, and i continue to maintain, that the economic and market environment that we will see going forward will be reminiscent of the periods between 1907-1914 leading into world war I and 1962-1969 leading into the vietnam war. but, as i have also said before, no good trader or investor gets married to a long term forecast unless they want their hide nailed to the wall. if circumstances change, so will my opinion. but so far i have seen nothing to warrant that change.

Its true that there are many possible terrible things that could happen. Bombings, plagues, nuclear horrors, financial collapse, mutants roaming the streets of your hometown...and these are the good things!
Seriously, does anybody remember this calamity that we endured called Y2K? The possible end of Western Civilization at midnight 1999? Somehow, we endeavored to persevere.
I'm 51 now and recall alot of times in the last thirty years when imminent doom was forecast right around the corner. Maybe it will happen one day, but I'll whisper a little secret to you ..."Its probably out of your control."
So, what can we do? How about we enjoy our friends, walk our dogs, pray or meditate for peace of mind, stay vigilant ,and maybe keep some extra food and water on hand if that's something that makes you feel better.
This is the end of my sermonette.

Alan, on your sermon. Amen!

Last time I checked, life was a terminal condition and pretty soon we're all going to die from it. Might as well check out with a smile, knowing that you've loved others deeply and likewise. If you keep worrying about the sword of damocles, then, how much fun do you or the kids have?

All right, I see two clearly different things being said here.

Lis is saying:
"People on the coasts have trouble seeing Millennial characteristics in 16-to-20-year-olds."

While David is saying:
"Lis, I don't want to get into an extended discussion, but believe me, blue zone 16-20 year olds have been Millenialized nearly to death. By their parents."

People are arguing different things here. Lis is saying that older teens don't show the characteristics of Hero generations, while David is saying that even in the Blue Zone they get the treatment by adults that is typical of Heroes. Parents try to "Millennialize" kids as David said by being strict and mean parents and wanting their kids to grow up to fall into their perfect ideal of what their son or daughter should be like. Teachers also give treatment that isn't typically given to Nomads or Prophets. But instead of accepting the demands as Heroes do, we rebel against them and live it all out in a very un-Heroic way. While parents make stricter and stricter rules we break them more and more in response. What we DO is clearly un-Millennial. Someone who takes a look at an '85er or an '81er with the way he or she acts and dresses and whether or not s/he accepts rules would gather that the person in an Xer, or if not an Xer at least not a Millie. But as I've mentioned many times before, if they had to go with Strauss/Howe's model that says there are NO generations or people between Xers and Millies they'd clearly be an Xer. There was a senile lady near my neighborhood who sincerely thought the stray dog she found was a cat and fed it cat food and wanted it to be independent and told it it was going to walk like a cat and all that stuff.....She petted it just like she'd like to pet a cat, and put milk in a bowl and EVERYTHING...all the while, it really was a dog and everyone knew it (except her) and as much as she tried to convince herself it was a cat it still kept sniffing her butt and barking, it still had droop ears and a dog's coat and a dog's tongue and a straight tail like a dog and a muzzle like a dog...She gave it just a cat's treatment and yet it continued to look and act like a dog. After the animal control picked the poor thing up she still put up posters claiming her "cat" was missing and had been taken from her. I've lived on the East Coast all my life and I know that 16-to-20-year-olds here are lacking the Millennial behavior and response to adult treatment...dude, almost everyone hated the war and the flag all school day long. -Craig

On 2001-09-18 23:29, madscientist wrote:

Seems like it is starting to happen now. All of a sudden, people don't seem to care about the popular culture as much. A traditional American culture spanning several generations is spreading with intense speed. ... Manners are now important, with Xers and Millies seeming to want to implement manners into American society.

::oOo:: Yo, Robert!

What have YOU been smoking?

-Craig

On 2001-09-28 16:50, Brian Rush wrote:

Your peers questioning the war is not just Prophet-like. It is also Hero-like. It is your job to question whether a proposed action is compatible with the civic renewal that must take place. It is also your job to raise the questions this attack poses about America's role in the world and how best to meet the world's needs. Fighting the war on terrorism, defending the country -- sure, that's your generation's job but it's only part of the job. Much more important is pushing us towards a lasting peace, towards the civic changes that must be made, towards a global order that is sustainable and fair to all. And if that requires putting your collective feet down and stopping the war effort until the changes are on track, then that's your job, too.

I would never think of questioning the war and even the draft as being Hero-like....damn, I'm trying but I still can't imagine it being Hero-like. I mean, S&H themselves said everyone stuck between 1982 and 2002 will go for "duty" and do their duty as soldiers, championing the draft. No matter what. It seems the student population filling the college and high schools are going to resist the draft...no matter what. Damn, how can these people how wrote the authoritative books on generations give the authoritative definition of the Hero archetype...and have the true, golden, definition on a pedestal be all wrong? They've got to be either right or wrong on this. I think there's some definitely real S&H Hero activity going on down there...and then there's something BEFORE the Heroes, not as apathetic as the Xers but still a generation that's clear and there. Delsyn did mention that the ones younger than us who are too young to think for themselves are looking up to the Boomers to decide what the right thing and the wrong thing to believe are...that they're developing a trusting relationship with authority and government that will last their whole lives. I pretty much think that's what she said. The elementary school students of today must be doing this...if these aren't the Heroes, the Poke'mon-playing and soccer-ball-kicking energized children of the post-nineties decade...man, I don't know WHAT they'd be. There are real people, real HEROES, who are reacting just as S&H said Heroes would act. Today's high school juniors, however, are clearly a different group, because the way the youngest generation of all acts (assuming Delsyn is right) is nothing like the way most high school or college students respond. We are visibly different...and we must be something else. A misplaced Prophet generation? Possibly. Who knows what we are? The great unanswered mysteries of the universe....-Craig

Of course Xers really do have principles and care about things (both Generation Y and the real Xers), but Xers being patriotic? The Xers aren't a patriotic generation, they act and sound the least patriotic out of all the generations today (GI's and Boomers being the most patriotic, and that includes Jonesers, the Silent generation being less patriotic, I don't know how the Lost generation feels, Generation X and Y are the least patriotic). I know the feelings about our country haven't changed in Generation Y and there's a big contempt of the flag thing from kids everywhere you go...
Now with Generation X, it isn't as clearly seen (at least from the point of someone my age), but if you get into the mind of any Xer, and speak with them, bring it up, they sure ain't patriotic. Not only do you not see very many Xers at all flag-waving, but there's no racism, no us-and-them mentality, and they voice the same views on the president and his government they always did. Bush is a loser with the thirteenth generation. The potential of winning the war doesn't change the classic Gen-X cynicism...nor can it change the fundamental anti-civic nature of Nomad generations.

Wow, Barbara, these kids can really relate to me. I don't know how to say I feel! I just feel so good for once being used as a positive example. I was an example that people in my generation can relate to! I feel like a celebrity now. Your grandson sounds awesome, I hope you get to speak to him more and I hope my....um, my inspirational words or something are helping him. The story about their reaction to being drafted scared me. It felt like my hair was standing on end after I read the whole thing. WHOA I'd never experienced anything like that before. Could we end up being known as the Two-faced Generation? Somehow that whole thing sounds even more contradictory and cynical than Gen X. Something very reactive about that that reminded me of the Lost Generation and the beatniks. Even the Xers who someone once said "listen from everything on their radio from Led Zeppelin to Rush Limbaugh in a single day".

Wow.

-Craig

What is it with this thread? 'Weird' is the only way to describe it!

Oh well, Mr. Mazanec wrote awhile back, "Marc's got some good points, too, but he is so emotional that he reminds me of a psychic on television..."

To wit I respond:
With the Great Depression raging, H. L. Mencken reminded his editors at the Baltimore Sun that 'America loves a good debate and I aim to give them one!'

While it is easy to confuse a mere 'emotional' response with a more dangerous (because it also 'reasons')response that is emoting 'passion' (I am right!), I will confess to Mr. Mazanec
that 'reason' probably has a few brothers and sisters of a differing opinion than oomwah, and that oohwah's 'passion' sometimes gets the better of him.

According to a former 'Gray Champ' named Franklin (not associated with the New Deal) thought of 'passion' as a 'she'; yes a woman! Furthermore, he thought, 'and when she [passion] governs, she never does so wisely.' I can't help thinking that Mr. Franklin came up with this notion of 'passion' while watching (or hearing of) a certain patriot calmly suggest, 'Give me liberty, or give me death!'

Certainly the question of, 'Is this it?' comes nowhere close, on the scale of magnitude, to the aforementioned question of what is to 'give,' Mr. Mazanec. And certainly I am aware of this, lest I be some sort of 'psychic' one sees 'on television' (Which is to imply a 'fraud' one sees 'on television').

I hope, for my wife and kids sake alone, that I am niether. :smile:

And I would also hope that my passionate window dressing does not distract one from the 'reason,' or 'good points,' of my arguments.

Which brings me to Mr. Butler, and his fine response to one of my passionate diatribes:

Mark Lamb writes: While it is now conventional wisdom, at this website, that we have entered the fourth turn (despite the fact that a certain 'elder' generation retains immense power in order to 'create History'), my 'personal' fear is that this is the ultimate setup for the BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

[Response] "The concept of 'big disappointment' has left me wondering about what would happen to cause 'Go to high crisis mode, do not pass go, do not collect $200."

Perhaps it was most difficult :smile: for Mr. Butler to respond to my 'passion' in a thoughtful, almost passionless way. But if he can do it why can't everybody?

In the meantime, I will attend to refining my 'window dressing.' :smile: Thank You.


p.s. And its Marc, not Mark. :lol:

[quote]
On 2001-10-19 23:56, Barbara wrote:

On 2001-10-19 20:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

True, but the jokes were about his being a crook. Those types of jokes are not unique, they go back to the Founding. As far as I know, the sort of 'dirty smirk' jokes that Clinton inspires are unique in American presidential history.

There have been a few other presidents who've been similarly cynicized. Three come to my mind who had a similar amount. There were only newspapers back in the old days, true, but since it was the only source of news, more people read them religiously or if they couldn't read, had others read to them. Then, tell two friends and so on... So, I would think the effect would parallel today.

As has been noted, Grover Cleveland did earn his share of smutty press, and it was vehement and snicker-y. However, Cleveland worked his way back to a respectable level of admiration, after it was spun (or the truth discovered, which ever way one believes) that he performed a charitable and honorable duty by caring for both the child and the emotionally disturbed mother. (It was suggested at the time that she was technically a nymphomaniac!)

Thomas Jefferson had more than his share of bitter and bitterly cynical criticism attributed to him for Sally Hemmings. It began even before he became president, and popped up again after his death.

Andrew Johnson had everything lobbed at him. He seemed at times to be equally crotchety in response. We know what happened to him.

To a much less degree, Jackson and Wilson had missles lobbed their way. Wilson got engaged in office after his first wife died.

In every case, based on what I've come across, all of the above with the possible exception of Wilson had these troubles in times of political turmoil of one sort or another (partisan arguments or position plays). Not to excuse the behavior in question, but some may have had it used like a weapon against them for political purposes and it could have skewered the truth a bit. Others got free rides because politics was humming right along.

For everyone who mentioned Grover Cleveland, thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about him. Likewise Jefferson and Hemmings.

I asked myself why it is that Clinton seems different to me, even in light of the Cleveland factor. I considered the possibility that as a Red Zoner right-winger, I might be failing to look past a visceral reaction, and I can't rule it out.

But I don't quite think so. I think the difference between Clinton and the others is that the 'smirk' factor has nothing much to set against it. For all his skill as a communicator and undeniable intelligence and gifts, Clinton actually did remarkably little as president.

Jefferson has the Lousianna Purchase, the Declaration of Independence (not him alone, though), and some other accomplishments to set in the scales against his scandals.

Cleveland had personal responsibility to his credit, even if it was spun.

The other reason, I think, for the Clinton smirk factor being different is that I don't know of any other scandal subject who gives the impression of reveling in it the way he does. Every so often, Clinton does something or says something that makes me suspect he actually rather likes this the attention, and he seems to be shameless, in the literal sense of the word. Recall the famous Rolling Stone cover, which came out just before the election in E2K.

(I always thought it might have been interesting to see Al Gore's face when he saw that cover appear that close to E day.)

Also, as far as I know, neither Cleveland nor Jefferson were prepared to go as far as Clinton did in defending themselves during the scandals. For example, Clinton had his people out ready to slander Monica as a groupie, a young girl fantasizing about the president, etc. If it wasn't for the blue dress, I suspect they'd have stuck to the story right up till today.

That odd combination of shamelessness and ruthlessness may be what sets Clinton apart.

On 2001-10-20 21:44, Craig '84 wrote:
Of course Xers really do have principles and care about things (both Generation Y and the real Xers), but Xers being patriotic? The Xers aren't a patriotic generation, they act and sound the least patriotic out of all the generations today (GI's and Boomers being the most patriotic, and that includes Jonesers, the Silent generation being less patriotic, I don't know how the Lost generation feels, Generation X and Y are the least patriotic). I know the feelings about our country haven't changed in Generation Y and there's a big contempt of the flag thing from kids everywhere you go...

You apparently haven't gone where I've been of late! I'm seeing a sea of flag and patriotic T-shirts, pins, and slogans from Xer and Millennial agers all around me.

Now with Generation X, it isn't as clearly seen (at least from the point of someone my age), but if you get into the mind of any Xer, and speak with them, bring it up, they sure ain't patriotic. Not only do you not see very many Xers at all flag-waving, but there's no racism, no us-and-them mentality, and they voice the same views on the president and his government they always did. Bush is a loser with the thirteenth generation. The potential of winning the war doesn't change the classic Gen-X cynicism...nor can it change the fundamental anti-civic nature of Nomad generations.

'Bush is a loser with the thirteenth generation...'

Speak for yourself, Craig! :smile: This Xer is for the most part quite impressed with Mr. Bush (and it takes a bit for a Prophet to impress me).

As an Xer myself, 'anti-civic' is not a phrase I would readily relate to my age-group. Indifferent might be applicable at times, but right now the Xers I know are marching in step on this subject (though in a practical sort of way).

Don't confuse a lack of noise with a lack of resolve. Often the two move in inverse correlation to each other.

Even the Xers who someone once said "listen from everything on their radio from Led Zeppelin to Rush Limbaugh in a single day".

Now THAT does describe me, at least. Not that I see anything contradictory about it.

Brian, I don't see how the Red Zone could push for its progress while the Blue Zone couldn't. Now that I read Bob's comments I think he's right that factors like the Islamic right could push us towards attitudes of liberty along the way. Now, gay people aren't going to help to save the nation if it still hurts them by putting people in jail when they stick a wiener up somebody's butt (or even a tongue), but straight people could very well change their mind and work to push gay rights after seeing what values like Jerry Falwell's are doing to the world. I still have my doubt that everyone will change their mind because there's so much hypocrisy in humanity still, like people being racist against Arabs while saying to "Unite" and mourning the people who were killed in the Twintowers while still opposing civil liberties, but a Crisis including terrorism might change enough people to make a big move forward for gay rights, or issues of executing innocent people.

Of course that depends on whether terrorism WILL be present in the Crisis, and if this isn't the Crisis (which I doubt it is after trying your test, Brian), terrorism may be eliminated before the real world-changing Crisis a.K.a. Fourth Turning comes...and then it wouldn't affect people's basic values during the Crisis.

One other thing. You argued on another thread that Boomers have no vision compared to your generation at this point. I wish to make it known here and now that, so far, you have articulated not one single vision that was not a Boomer vision long before you ever heard of it. We may have done a lousy job of living up to our own ideals, but they are our ideals nonetheless, and you can't claim them except by right of inheritance.

That's why I said "more vision than Boomers WILL EVER HAVE AGAIN". Instead of "more vision than Boomers ever had". Frankly though, Robert made it seem as if the Boomers were to cut off the vision starting now, because we didn't pay the utility bill, we'd suffer because we wouldn't have any vision with us if the Boomers were to cut it off now. -Craig

Craig:
I've got two Xer children..and what you describe sounds just about right.

On 2001-10-20 21:10, Craig '84 wrote:
All right, I see two clearly different things being said here.

Lis is saying:
"People on the coasts have trouble seeing Millennial characteristics in 16-to-20-year-olds."

While David is saying:
"Lis, I don't want to get into an extended discussion, but believe me, blue zone 16-20 year olds have been Millenialized nearly to death. By their parents."

People are arguing different things here. Lis is saying that older teens don't show the characteristics of Hero generations, while David is saying that even in the Blue Zone they get the treatment by adults that is typical of Heroes. Parents try to "Millennialize" kids as David said by being strict and mean parents and wanting their kids to grow up to fall into their perfect ideal of what their son or daughter should be like. Teachers also give treatment that isn't typically given to Nomads or Prophets. But instead of accepting the demands as Heroes do, we rebel against them and live it all out in a very un-Heroic way. While parents make stricter and stricter rules we break them more and more in response. What we DO is clearly un-Millennial. Someone who takes a look at an '85er or an '81er with the way he or she acts and dresses and whether or not s/he accepts rules would gather that the person in an Xer, or if not an Xer at least not a Millie. But as I've mentioned many times before, if they had to go with Strauss/Howe's model that says there are NO generations or people between Xers and Millies they'd clearly be an Xer.

The early G.I.s were very, very Lost like, too.

I've lived on the East Coast all my life and I know that 16-to-20-year-olds here are lacking the Millennial behavior and response to adult treatment...dude, almost everyone hated the war and the flag all school day long. -Craig

If I understand the S&H theory, the Millennials are a potential Hero generation, but not yet there. The Crisis transforms the people who take part in it as rising adults, turning them into a Hero generation. The Crisis, if it is here yet at all, has barely started.

Also, if the Crisis comes ahead of time, the result can be odd, with the Reactive generation taking on some of the traits usually associated with the Hero generation, precisely from going through the Crisis as rising adults. (It should be kept in mind that right now the vast majority of the rising adult age category is still Xer, and will be for a few years yet, barring Crisis).

It's an interesting question: what would a potential Hero generation become if they never experienced a Crisis at all? At the very least, I suspect that the traits of the Nomad mindset would run on well into the would-have-been Hero group.

On 2001-10-20 21:12, Craig '84 wrote:

On 2001-09-18 23:29, madscientist wrote:

Seems like it is starting to happen now. All of a sudden, people don't seem to care about the popular culture as much. A traditional American culture spanning several generations is spreading with intense speed. ... Manners are now important, with Xers and Millies seeming to want to implement manners into American society.

::oOo:: Yo, Robert!

What have YOU been smoking?

-Craig

I don't know whether or not it is different in New Jersey, but here in St. Louis, this is exactly how things are. So maybe you are still in 3T there, but here, we are definitely in 4T. It's a truth here. People don't care for the popular culture, and it has become very irrevelant. And yes, there are manners now. People are now much nicer to people. Children are nicer, Xers are nicer, and families have really coalesced after 911.

On 2001-10-20 09:28, Lis '54 wrote:

On 2001-10-19 18:06, choselh wrote:

I thought turnings were something that have to happen to everyone at the same time.

No, they don't. Summer came earlier to the Coasts than they did to the heartland, and the first frosts came to the heartland several years ago. Remember, the spark or catalyst is simply the point at which the balance tips over to the next Turning.

Now that's true. I live in the Heartland, and there have been hints of 4T in the air here for a long time, like static looking for a place to discharge. Not so much a desire for disaster or trouble as a sense that trouble was coming, and a desire for a more orderly and traditional mindset.