On 2002-07-19 15:10, alan wrote:
Jenny--a couple of years ago there was a documentary on PBS, Nova I think, on the 1918 flu. I can't recite the statistics which they gave but they focused quite a bit on the societal aspects of the epidemic, such as the mortality rate in comparison to the population of the U.S. at that time. Also the social effects that came from the flu's concentrated attack on the young and healthy, including young men who were crowded together in Army camps as part of the troop build-up for WW1.
I *recall* (my imperfect memory!) that they mentioned a likely decrease in the birthrate for that young generation, if only because a number of them died from the flu.
To me, the most interesting thing which was discussed was the societal amnesia about the epidemic. They said that people just wanted to put it out of their minds and in fact they were quite successful at forgetting it.(as a society, the individuals who lost loved ones grieved for the rest of their lives)
You may very well have seen the documentary--in case you didn't maybe you can find it on videotape. HTH

I didn't see the documentary, but it figures that a disease that hits mostly nomads would have less impact. I mean, when did society ever give a crap about nomads?

Note: this isn't meant to diss Gen-X (or the Lost), just stating the well-known fact that nomads get the raw end of the deal.

On 2002-07-19 15:22, Marc Lamb wrote:


"To paraphrase the election 1992 slogan, its the mortality stupid!"

Then it seems to me kinda "stupid" to place 9/11 in that kind of category.

Yeah, well how many people died during the stock market crash of 1929?

By the way, the link showed that my dates on when the plague hit England were right on the money. Hee hee -- I LOVE being right. :grin;

_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-19 17:43 ]</font>

"Yeah, well how many people died during the stock market crash of 1929?"

Well then, 1) what is it that makes the year 1929 (six years after the Missionary peak) any different from 1919 (four years from the Missionary peak)?

And 2) does this translate today (at least four years before the Boomer peak)?


Perhaps counting bodies at the end of the day does not a fourth turning make?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-19 18:22 ]</font>

There is a very interesting article in the June 2002 issue of the American Historical Review by Samuel Cohn that suggests that yersina pestis was not the cause of the 14th century Black Death, because it was epidemiologically inconsistent with the way the rat flea bacillus operated in the 20th century (it was first cultured in Hong Kong in 1894). What he doesn't say, if it wasn't bubonic or pneumonic plague (of the yersina pestis variety) what in the hell was it?

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

On 2002-07-19 17:40, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-07-19 15:22, Marc Lamb wrote:


"To paraphrase the election 1992 slogan, its the mortality stupid!"

Then it seems to me kinda "stupid" to place 9/11 in that kind of category.

Yeah, well how many people died during the stock market crash of 1929?

...or at the Boston Tea Party in 1773?

Marc:
What was different was the aftermath. After 1919, people went back to "normal" and even "forgot" that the flu ever occurred. After 1929, the country slumped into Depression, then elected Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt. So far, the social reaction to 9-1-1 seems to be at least intermediate...all the Homeland security stuff. A catalyst is decided by how the country reacts to it. I still think it more likely than not that 9-1-1 was the beginning of the Fourth Turning, if only because we will probably have another terrorist attack comparable to 9-1-1 in the next couple years, and this will confirm the mood shift.

On 2002-07-20 19:36, Tom Mazanec wrote:
Marc:
What was different was the aftermath. After 1919, people went back to "normal" and even "forgot" that the flu ever occurred. After 1929, the country slumped into Depression, then elected Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt. So far, the social reaction to 9-1-1 seems to be at least intermediate...all the Homeland security stuff. A catalyst is decided by how the country reacts to it. I still think it more likely than not that 9-1-1 was the beginning of the Fourth Turning, if only because we will probably have another terrorist attack comparable to 9-1-1 in the next couple years, and this will confirm the mood shift.

Unless the current behavior of the stock market (down 15% in the last 2 weeks!) continues, and spreads to all the other financial markets first. An event similar to S&H's 'Great Devaluation' should confirm the mood shift just as nicely as another 9/11-scale terrorst attack would.

Found from a "blog" that the S&H inc. has started up. Does this mean that Mr. Howe think we are in 4T now? :wink:

July 14, 2002
the mood of 4T America
Take a look at the following official federal website... and explore:

http://www.citizencorps.gov/

This is where we are today. What?s next down the road?

Posted by Neil Howe at 09:31 PM | Link | Comments (0)

On 2002-07-21 07:03, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-07-20 19:36, Tom Mazanec wrote:
Marc:
What was different was the aftermath. After 1919, people went back to "normal" and even "forgot" that the flu ever occurred. After 1929, the country slumped into Depression, then elected Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt. So far, the social reaction to 9-1-1 seems to be at least intermediate...all the Homeland security stuff. A catalyst is decided by how the country reacts to it. I still think it more likely than not that 9-1-1 was the beginning of the Fourth Turning, if only because we will probably have another terrorist attack comparable to 9-1-1 in the next couple years, and this will confirm the mood shift.

Unless the current behavior of the stock market (down 15% in the last 2 weeks!) continues, and spreads to all the other financial markets first. An event similar to S&H's 'Great Devaluation' should confirm the mood shift just as nicely as another 9/11-scale terrorst attack would.

Already, I am reading warnings to people in their 50s and 60s that their retirement will not be as rosy as it looked a couple years ago, because of the bear market.

If consumer confidence disappears, does that signal that a 4T is underway? By this I mean that people as a whole change their behavior, stop buying new stuff, and get into frugality as a virtue. I keep reading that consumer spending has been keeping the economy going, but I have to wonder how long that can last.
From today's Seattle Times, 07/21/02.What if We Stop Buying--"The really big risk is that consumers will reawaken to the timeless truth that the best way to save money is to stop spending," said Richard Hastings, chief economist at Cyber Business Credit, a retail advisory firm in New York. "And I think that will impact aggregate demand in a way that has not been seen since the 1930's."
I'm starting to think that 911, as horrible as it was, was not really a catalyst for the next 4T. I'm entertaining the idea of it as having been sort of a parallel event to the economic downturn that had already begun before 911. Perhaps such as a bad flood or a hurricane or a trainwreck might have captured people's attention in the fall of 1929, a distraction from what was actually happening. Of course, 911 was done by human beings for reasons relating to economics, politics, and history, but I've never actually been convinced for this past year that it should have had so much impact on the national economy. It had nothing to do with AOL/Time Warner, Enron, Worldcom, etc. All those problems, including the dot.com craziness needed no help from any outsiders such as Osama Bin Laden.
I'm much more apprehensive about the downward lurching economy than I am about the possibility of bearded madmen who might be lurking on the streets of Seattle, awaiting their orders from OBL. That doesn't change my behavior or my attitudes regarding daily life. The economy, though...I'm awfully glad that I already purchased a copy of the collected Tightwad's Gazette and am grateful that I've already been through a recession or two and know how to cut costs.
Anyway....despite all the hoorah of Homeland Security, neighborhood spies, airport gropings and waitings, color-coded security alerts, all that good stuff which has so captured our attention, is it possible that we've been distracted by 911 and that the real 4T catalyst will be when enough people look into their wallets and emulate Edvard Munch's The Scream?

July 14, 2002
the mood of 4T America
Take a look at the following official federal website... and explore:

http://www.citizencorps.gov/

This is where we are today. What?s next down the road?

Posted by Neil Howe at 09:31 PM | Link | Comments (0)

Nice to see you posting at T4T.com, Mr. Howe. "What?s next down the road?" Some tough times, Mr. Howe, perhaps made tougher as the Democrats seek to do in the Bush Adminstration that way their fathers did in Nixon.

But, even if they succeed, even if the economy tanks, even if the world implodes into abject chaos of terrorism and anarchy, succuming to dread diseases and vast environmetal disaster... ain't nothin' much gonna change really.

Nope, not til the Silent and the Boom are diffused enough that the rampant individualism of 2002 gives way to something new, something we dare not dream of today.

It's generational in nature, this metamorphosis thing, Mr. Howe. A couple of rather insightful guys wrote about it. Damn if I can remember the title of that daggone book, though.

Can anybody help me, and Mr Howe, out there?

Alan writes....

If consumer confidence disappears, does that signal that a 4T is underway? By this I mean that people as a whole change their behavior, stop buying new stuff, and get into frugality as a virtue. I keep reading that consumer spending has been keeping the economy going, but I have to wonder how long that can last.

From today's Seattle Times, 07/21/02.What if We Stop Buying--"The really big risk is that consumers will reawaken to the timeless truth that the best way to save money is to stop spending," said Richard Hastings, chief economist at Cyber Business Credit, a retail advisory firm in New York. "And I think that will impact aggregate demand in a way that has not been seen since the 1930's."

I'm starting to think that 911, as horrible as it was, was not really a catalyst for the next 4T. I'm entertaining the idea of it as having been sort of a parallel event to the economic downturn that had already begun before 911. Perhaps such as a bad flood or a hurricane or a trainwreck might have captured people's attention in the fall of 1929, a distraction from what was actually happening. Of course, 911 was done by human beings for reasons relating to economics, politics, and history, but I've never actually been convinced for this past year that it should have had so much impact on the national economy. It had nothing to do with AOL/Time Warner, Enron, Worldcom, etc. All those problems, including the dot.com craziness needed no help from any outsiders such as Osama Bin Laden.

I'm much more apprehensive about the downward lurching economy than I am about the possibility of bearded madmen who might be lurking on the streets of Seattle, awaiting their orders from OBL. That doesn't change my behavior or my attitudes regarding daily life. The economy, though...I'm awfully glad that I already purchased a copy of the collected Tightwad's Gazette and am grateful that I've already been through a recession or two and know how to cut costs.

Anyway....despite all the hoorah of Homeland Security, neighborhood spies, airport gropings and waitings, color-coded security alerts, all that good stuff which has so captured our attention, is it possible that we've been distracted by 911 and that the real 4T catalyst will be when enough people look into their wallets and emulate Edvard Munch's The Scream?

Part of my mantra has been that we need to equalize the division of wealth between third world and rich countries to have a chance at solving the ethnic / religious crisis. Western wealth was originally based on Imperialism, captured markets forced to supply cheap raw materials. Labor unions increased the cost of western labor while providing rich consumers that could afford to purchase the goods mass produced. With the end of colonial captive markets and with corporations moving manufacturing jobs to foreign non-union cheap labor, we may have ourselves a house of cards. Too many of today's western service oriented jobs provide luxury services. If a significant portion of the population tries to live without luxuries, many service driven jobs vanish. Without US markets to ship manufactured goods to, how well will the rest of the world do?

After 9.11, what was the major task demanded of us by our great leader? We were supposed to travel and spend big at Christmas. To maintain our high octane economy, someone has to consume. Consumers create markets. Without consumers, things could well fall apart.

I'm rambling. Anyway, prior crises have had many facets... military, economic, moral, political, religious. This one is no different. When the next 4th Turning comes, there will still be disagreements whether this one was primarily ethnic, military or economic, just as folks argue on which is the major factor in the US Civil War. The issues are all tangled up.

Marc Lamb writes...

It's generational in nature, this metamorphosis thing, Mr. Howe. A couple of rather insightful guys wrote about it. Damn if I can remember the title of that daggone book, though.

Can anybody help me, and Mr Howe, out there?

My theory on that book you are trying to remember is that a couple of conservative authors wrote about how radical change occurs. Values which are now considered traditional and conservative were once radical and new. Thus, modern conservative writers - worshiping modern conservative ideas - were able to say constructive things about how it was and might be again that radical changes occur.

But I'm not sure you can expect these authors to embrace and promote the next generation of radical ideas. (A while ago, one of them warned that a new and dangerous time is coming, when a new Washington, Lincoln or FDR might appear, willing to sacrifice American blood for radical new ideals.) One can learn much about how societies change by reading generation theory books. One finds little to nothing constructive about what will come out of the next round of change. Thus, I would expect from these authors more books centered on the culture of the Millennial generation, but nothing on the great issues the hypothetical Gray Champion will have to address. The author's values are the values of the last great cycle. They have been left behind by their own theory.

"The author's values are the values of the last great cycle. They have been left behind by their own theory."


That's probably true, as these are the values of the present um, less than great cycle.

p.s. Hey, you spelled my name right! What's up with that?

On 2002-07-19 16:09, Marc Lamb wrote:

blah-blah-blah, then ...

Meanwhile, it's politics as usual with Democrats calling Republicans crooks and the Republicans cowering in the corner of the rotunda.

What's new, folks? :roll

After eight years of Republicans pulling out every stop to crucify Bill 'n Hill, just what point are you trying to make here? That turn-about is NOT fair play? Or bygones should be bygones? I know it has to be something!

Oh yeah, stocks are down today... Here comes the New Deal II: Communism, this time, baby!

... and not a minute too soon :wink:

Mr. Horn writes,
"After eight years of Republicans pulling out every stop to crucify Bill 'n Hill, just what point are you trying to make here?"

Funny, I recall another "President" hounded out of office for "lying" to the American people (though he never committed "perjury" and fined for it by a federal judge), castigated for making an "enemies list" (though he was never accused of collecting actual "FBI files" on political enemies), impuned for "kicking his dog" (though he used cigars only as they were intended), dismissed for using "hatchet men" like Chuck Colson (though he never encouraged his people, like Sid Blumenthal, to "lie to a grand jury").

As far as the "point" goes... oh, never mind.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-23 09:23 ]</font>

Marc Lamb assembled the following::

Mr. Horn writes,
"After eight years of Republicans pulling out every stop to crucify Bill 'n Hill, just what point are you trying to make here?"

Funny, I recall another "President" hounded out of office for "lying" to the American people (though he never committed "perjury" and fined for it by a federal judge), castigated for making an "enemies list" (though he was never accused of collecting actual "FBI files" on political enemies), impuned for "kicking his dog" (though he used cigars only as they were intended), dismissed for using "hatchet men" like Chuck Colson (though he never encouraged his people, like Sid Blumenthal, to "lie to a grand jury").

As far as the "point" goes... oh, never mind.

... which has nothing to do with the question I asked, but thanks anyway. Look at it this way:

• Making a point that Clinton was sleazy is a waste of time, because I agree. So do most people.
• Makng a point that Nixon wasn't, is a waste of time, because virtually NO ONE agrees.
• Complaining that GWB and the Republicans are being persecuted is one of your better jokes, because they are not even getting back a small portion of what they gave. They started on Clinton before he was elected, and continued down every alley - open or blind - for the rest of his presidency. That's awfully close to persecution. In fact it would be, if Clinton hadn't been a public figure at the time.

If the Democrats were as venal as you indicate, why did they give Reagan, Bush-I and the entire Reqgan cabinet a pass on Iran-Contra. Even Lawrence Walsh thought that was too generous. Read the entire report if you doubt it.


Oh yeah ... Walsh was and is a Republican. Q.E.D.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-23 10:23 ]</font>

You keep missing my points, Mr. Horn. That's ok, because we don't even agree to disagree. But...

1. My point wasn't (and never is) that Clinton was a sleaze, but rather that he is a pathological liar with a blatant disregard for the law he was sworn to uphold. That he escaped jail is one thing, that his wife will probably become president someday is more than just a little disconcerting.

2. My point was not in defending Nixon, but rather making clear while the GOP removed the "cancer" from the White House and our party, the Democrats (see above) have not only refused to so but actually take great pride in everything Clinton stood for.

3. My point is not that the Republicans are being "persecuted" but rather they refuse to fight back.

4. Lawrence Walsh and his report were a joke.

Marc Lamb wrote:

You keep missing my points, Mr. Horn. That's ok, because we don't even agree to disagree. But...

1. My point wasn't (and never is) that Clinton was a sleaze, but rather that he is a pathological liar with a blatant disregard for the law he was sworn to uphold. That he escaped jail is one thing, that his wife will probably become president someday is more than just a little disconcerting.

The likelihood of any significant part of the US voting for Hillary is just about zero. She would do worse than McGovern or Dukakis.

2. My point was not in defending Nixon, but rather making clear while the GOP removed the "cancer" from the White House and our party, the Democrats (see above) have not only refused to so but actually take great pride in everything Clinton stood for.

I don't think the Republicans did very much, except go along. Not exactly a <u>Portrait in Courage</u>

3. My point is not that the Republicans are being "persecuted" but rather they refuse to fight back.

They are being politicians. They have no leg to stand on, so they're sitting, as politicians do most of the time.

4. Lawrence Walsh and his report were a joke.

I'm sure you know that based on your power of assertion, because I doubt you read any of it.


The fact is, Clinton was a sleaze in his personal life, and lied to protect his ass, but all three Republicans: Nixon, Reagan and Bush, were more inclined to abuse the power of their office. I hope you aren't indicating that official misbehavior is less or even equal in magnitude to private misbehavior.

On 2002-07-23 12:17, Marc Lamb wrote:

2. My point was not in defending Nixon, but rather making clear while the GOP removed the "cancer" from the White House and our party, the Democrats (see above) have not only refused to so but actually take great pride in everything Clinton stood for.

As a Democrat, I take issue with that last statement.

Left-leaning Democrats detested much of Clinton's policies, including welfare reform, free trade, his "Don't ask don't tell" military policy, and some other issues I can't think of right now. Those on the Left who voted for Clinton in 1996 did so because they prefered him over Dole and a Presidency/Congress entirely in GOP hands. They also tended to support his social agenda -- feminist, pro-choice, environmentalist.

Moderate Democrats tended to support most of his policies but HATED his lack of integrity.

Most Democrats regard Clinton as a major disappointment.

Jenny Genser took Marc Lamb to task when she wrote:

As a Democrat, I take issue with that last statement (i.e. Democrats supported Clinton knowing he was slimy).

Left-leaning Democrats detested much of Clinton's policies, including welfare reform, free trade, his "Don't ask don't tell" military policy, and some other issues I can't think of right now. Those on the Left who voted for Clinton in 1996 did so because they prefered him over Dole and a Presidency/Congress entirely in GOP hands. They also tended to support his social agenda -- feminist, pro-choice, environmentalist.

Moderate Democrats tended to support most of his policies but HATED his lack of integrity.

Most Democrats regard Clinton as a major disappointment.

Agreed. 100%. I think a poll of Democrats and all others on the left would make that nearly unanimous. On the other hand, they were agast at the extremes Republicans would explore just to hang something on him. For that reason alone, he got most of his support, from Democrats and common citizens alike.

And while we're on the subject, I don't think much of the distaff side, either. They are just not trustworthy people, and like Bill, she spins more than flax.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-23 14:30 ]</font>

On Hillary:

It is interesting to see how some of you are trying to put Clinton into perspective now that he is half gone. My memories are of the two House Judiciary Committees: One House Judiciary Committee which, in 1974, voted 27-11 to "yes" to the articles, with Republican names like William Cohen, Lawrence Hogan, Hamilton Fish, Robert McClory saying "yes" with the Democrat majority.

And then twenty-five years later, sitting in the very same chamber of the Rayburn House Office Building where articles of impeachment were issued in 1974 against President Nixon, that same Committee voted a straight 21 to 16 party-line vote to recommend the impeachment of President Clinton. Names like John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Marty Meehan and Gerald Nadler had nothing but contempt for the very process that Barbara Jordan held with such eloquent reverence 25 years before.

And then the show of solidarity with Clinton as all those Democrats walked out of the House Chambers during the impeachment vote... and, of course, ther was Albert Gore, Jr. with his Clinton will be remembered as "one of our greatest president" at the post-impeachment rally.

It was all for that "sleaze" in the White House. You all seem to have forgotten that already. :smile: And so have the American people, no doubt.

Time to take the high road again. Yesterday Gore "compared the administration's handling of the economy to business decisions that led to the collapse of Enron, saying Bush is creating a huge deficit. The Bush administration has 'lied about the future liabilities they have put on our shoulders as taxpayers,'" the story quoted Gore saying.

Mr. clean, huh?

And then there is the same U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who voted "yes" on all three articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974, and "no" to all three against Clinton in 1999, yesterday said "President Bush's trading in corporate stock and Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive of Halliburton Co., as well as activities by other high-ranking administration figures, were questionable enough to merit a Ken Starr-type federal investigation."

Mr. Clean, huh?

And where is Hillary? Waiting, waiting for just the right time... and it is coming. She will become president of the United States of America.

Because the American memory is quite short...
Lest we forget.

"Moderate Democrats tended to support most of his policies but HATED his lack of integrity."

Perhaps, but when it got right down to taking a stand for what the very word, integrity, actually meant... like standing up for things like the integrity of judicial system (ie, punishing a perjurier), the rule of law (ie., punishing an obstructor of justice), the meaning of the word, integrity, had to take a backseat to something far more dangerous... agreeing with a Republican. :smile:

Marc Lamb wrote,
"Time to take the high road again. Yesterday Gore "compared the administration's handling of the economy to business decisions that led to the collapse of Enron, saying Bush is creating a huge deficit. The Bush administration has 'lied about the future liabilities they have put on our shoulders as taxpayers,'" the story quoted Gore saying."

"The stock was being touted by executives of the company, while they, in fact, were selling theirs and average stockholders were holding on and in the process of losing their life's savings, so this was a really shocking and unsettling scandal in which greed and arrogance, deception and fraud and maybe criminal behavior was involved." --Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Joseph Lieberman (on Enron's collapse January 14, 2002)

Interesting, now that Citigroup has been widely implicated in "concealing Enron's debt from investors, the general public, and government regulators," the question is being ask why, then, hasn't former Clinton treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, now the chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, been called to testify before Congress?

No brainer here, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Clinton, like Mr. Conyers and Mr. Gore, too are in the Mr. Clean Club. Which is to say, they are quite above such partisan bickering about silly things like "criminal behavior" and such.

And above the law, too. :smile:

Let's get real. The Republicans stood by Nixon until his situation became hopeless. The country had turned against him and Congressional Republicans had to worry about their own seats.