Yeah pretty much.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Does that mean that ahmadinejad is more of an iranian clinton rather than an iranian GWB?

I take it you mean placement in the saeculum rather than personality. Clinton isn't much of a fire-eater; he needs to be liked to much for that.

I think Clinton had more of a Silent personality type, probably because of growing up in an abusive alcoholic family. Hillary is much more a Boomer than he is. And in power, he aimed to please.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think Clinton had more of a Silent personality type, probably because of growing up in an abusive alcoholic family. Hillary is much more a Boomer than he is. And in power, he aimed to please.

David K '47

Hmm, gee whiz, and along came a very unpleasing 9/11. Tsk, tsk. Democrats rule, baby, Democrats rule.

Originally Posted by Finch

Very interesting. Doesn't the fact that a Silent has any influence at all at the highest levels of goverment mean that the 4T has not yet begun?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Who says it's conventional wisdom? I've always assumed... correctly, of course... that the 1979 Iranian Revolution was their Awakening Social Moment, analogous to our own Summer of Love. That would put Iran one half-turning behind us, at worst.

I am with you and the Wonkette. Xenakis and his admiring student don't recognize that intense warfare can occur in 2T's, thus their rejection of the English Civil War being 2T.

It is pretty clear that there was a nearly civilization-wide Awakening in the muslim world in the last quarter of the 20th century. Scholars in the West often refer to it as the "Islamic Resurgence". In the muslim world itself I think it is often called "Sahar" meaning "dawn" or "awakening". I have also heard it called other things but can't remember what they were.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> It is pretty clear that there was a nearly civilization-wide
> Awakening in the muslim world in the last quarter of the 20th
> century. Scholars in the West often refer to it as the "Islamic
> Resurgence". In the muslim world itself I think it is often called
> "Sahar" meaning "dawn" or "awakening". I have also heard it called
> other things but can't remember what they were.

This is moronic nonsense. World War I destroyed the Ottoman Empire,
destroyed the Caliphate in Istanbul, and redrew the map for the
entire Muslim world. That was clearly a crisis war, which puts the
Awakening into the 30s and 40s.

Of course there's an "Islamic Resurgence" in the 70s, 80s and 90s --
that's because it's 70-80 years after World War I. So the "Islamic
Resurgence" is the next 4T in the remains of the Ottoman Empire.

And as you attempt to educate yourself on how all this works, don't
lose track of the fact that there are other Muslim countries around
the world, stretching from Africa to Southeast Asia, and many of them
are on different timelines, in some cases with Awakenings on a World
War II timeline. You can't take a simplistic view if you care about
getting it right.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> Using GD I can predict with "near 100% certainty" that Germany and
> Russia are going to go to war in the next 10 years. I mean, if it
> works for China and Japan . . .

This is moronic nonsense. There's no way to simplistically go from
one crisis war to the next like that. By your reasoning, World War
II should have been a new American Civil War. That's not how it
works.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think Clinton had more of a Silent personality type, probably because of growing up in an abusive alcoholic family. Hillary is much more a Boomer than he is. And in power, he aimed to please.

He might be a silent, but he came out swining against Chris Wallace. Good for him. He's taken a lot of crap for just being Bill, and it's about time he stood-by some of the decisions he made that proved to be right ... or as right as hyper-partisan politics would allow.

He may have helped set the stage for a real discussion how to get where we're going, or he may just be setting things in place for Hillary. Either way, he showed that you can be a Democrat and still have a spine.

Xenakis,

I have noticed that you've been throwing around the term "moronic nonsense" a lot lately. Is that the new catchphrase replacing "100% certainty"? Regardless, I am still pleased to see that you are a pompous donkey.

If you think the Arab and Persian fixation on spiritual matters in late 20th century (after decades of secular institution-buliding) is a 3T or 4T issue, then GD has NOTHING to do with S&H, your claims notwithstanding.

See, it's not exclusively about "Crisis Wars", my fine Greek friend, but about an alternating emphasis on secular/outer vs. spiritual/inner, among other dynamically interrelated things (e.g., child-raising trends, generational archetypes, etc . . . ). But your glorified War Cycle and 100% certainty wouldn't understand such "moronic nonsense". Are large, terrible wars more likely during 4Ts? Most definitely. But is it definitional? No.

S&H's inclusion of the English Civil War as late 2T and the mid-19th century in Europe as likely 4T, demonstrate that you are WAY out of step with their most fundamental thinking. GD is not an "improvement", it is a regressive deviation. S&H already included war cycles into their theory, which is more encompassing.

And yes, I am well aware of differing timelines. We all are. You did not "discover" them (as you erroneously claimed a year or two back). We, and S&H for that matter, talked about them long before you showed up here. It seems to me (but without 100% cetainty) that most of the muslim world experienced the late 20th century as a 2T. It seem quite likely that it's separate parts experienced their last 4T at different times.

But as you point out, synchronization does and will take place as cultures and civilizations increasingly interact. Whether their periods of foundational institutionalization ended in 1950 (Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Palestine?) or 1960 (Indonesia? Egypt?), it seems most of them began to experience a textbook spiritual awakening in the late 70's, if not a little later in some. Previous values that encouraged compatibility with Western secularization started to be viciously attacked at that time throughout the various Islamic regions.

I must admit Turkey confounds me (as do Mexico and Ireland elsewhere), but I don't lose sleep over it.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,



This is moronic nonsense. World War I destroyed the Ottoman Empire,
destroyed the Caliphate in Istanbul, and redrew the map for the
entire Muslim world. That was clearly a crisis war, which puts the
Awakening into the 30s and 40s.

Of course there's an "Islamic Resurgence" in the 70s, 80s and 90s --
that's because it's 70-80 years after World War I. So the "Islamic
Resurgence" is the next 4T in the remains of the Ottoman Empire.

And as you attempt to educate yourself on how all this works, don't
lose track of the fact that there are other Muslim countries around
the world, stretching from Africa to Southeast Asia, and many of them
are on different timelines, in some cases with Awakenings on a World
War II timeline. You can't take a simplistic view if you care about
getting it right.



This is moronic nonsense. There's no way to simplistically go from
one crisis war to the next like that. By your reasoning, World War
II should have been a new American Civil War. That's not how it
works.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Yeah, well it seems our Johnny-boy knows LOTS about morony on many, many levels ;-).

WW1 wasn't necessarily a Crisis War in the Arab world... it could very well have been an Awakening one. Fourth Turnings are eras in which the secular establishment either collapses or is overthrown and is replaced by a new relationship between the people, government, business, the military, etc. Conversely, in an Awakening it is the spiritual aspect of society that is called into question, then given the boot, to be replaced with a quite different definition of morality. Now in the Arab world, the distinction between the secular and spiritual is much more blurred than here in the West... in some places like Saudi Arabia, it can be argued that there IS no secular component of society... religion trumps all. As such, how can one say with certainty that WW1 wasn't in fact an Awakening event, in which an oppressive spiritual establishment (the ruling Ottomans) were overthrown?

One thing that is certain is this: World War Two was a global conflict affecting virtually every nation on Earth either directly or indirectly. It is quite likely that it had the effect of synchronizing more closely the saecular timelines on which various nations were previously on. I doubt seriously whether any country on Earth is more than a half-Turning ahead or behind the United States by now.

For example, the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 practically reeks Awakening... it had all the hallmarks of a student-led Sit-In From Hell. There's absolutely no way that event took place in a 4T. Moreover, the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-89 ended in a draw... if the conflict had occured in a Crisis, it would have continued until one party, or the other, or both, had been completely and utterly obliterated. This did not happen, because it wasn't a Crisis war. I'd say that before 9/11, Iran and Iraq were about ten years behind us on the saeculum. But if 9/11 brought America into a 4T, then the American response in the Middle East just may be bringing that part of the world into a 4T as well... regardless of whether they're quite "ready" or not.

The synchronization continues.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Yeah, well it seems our Johnny-boy knows LOTS about morony on many, many levels ;-).

He's a piece of work, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

One thing that is certain is this: World War Two was a global conflict affecting virtually every nation on Earth either directly or indirectly. It is quite likely that it had the effect of synchronizing more closely the saecular timelines on which various nations were previously on.

Yes!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

For example, the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 practically reeks Awakening... it had all the hallmarks of a student-led Sit-In From Hell.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The synchronization continues.

It will be hard to imagine the globe not being sychronized by the end of this 4T.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I have noticed that you've been throwing around the term "moronic nonsense" a lot lately. Is that the new catchphrase replacing "100% certainty"? Regardless, I am still pleased to see that you are a pompous donkey.

I noticed that too. Hmm, Boomers getting all grumpy about Xers getting up in their grill, and Xers calling them out on that? Sounds Early 4T to me.

Speaking of which, and back to the ostensible topic of this thread... when, and how, are Nomads going to take control of the Iraq debacle, both in the US and in Iraq? Guesses or speculations? Anybody? Bueller?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

It will be hard to imagine the globe not being sychronized by the end of this 4T.

That's what I see coming too. 1940's technology such as radio and motion pictures, while not as pervasive as the internet today, no doubt syncronized much of the globe then. Assuming this 4t doesn't end in disaster, the global 2t circa 2050 should be interesting for those around to see it. The global 4t circa 2100 may be even more dangerous than this one, if that is possible.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

That's what I see coming too. 1940's technology such as radio and motion pictures, while not as pervasive as the internet today, no doubt syncronized much of the globe then. Assuming this 4t doesn't end in disaster, the global 2t circa 2050 should be interesting for those around to see it. The global 4t circa 2100 may be even more dangerous than this one, if that is possible.

Sure may. By then, it isn't hard to imagine a terrorist organization getting hold of a matter-antimatter device, and threatening to vaporize the entire planet in a flash... from the safety of Mars.

Taken from a speech by Keith Olbermann tonight on his MSNBC show "CountDown". (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/page/2/):

A textbook definition of cowardice

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”

Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.

Nonetheless. The headline is this:

Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.

He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration did not try.

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!

...

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except for this.

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
...

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?

Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?

Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?

Who distracted whom?

This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.

Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.

He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.

And there it is, Mr. Bush:

Are yours the actions of a true American?

Tak,

That was absolutely superb. Perfect. Brilliant!!! I want to see HC answer this. Just for amusement's sake.

Olberman RULES.

YEAH, it was.

But why do I have the sinking feeling that the American public, once the Bush/Rove machine is done with their... machinations... will believe every syllable that they utter? I'm rapidly losing faith that Americans as a whole will do the right thing for their Nation and for themselves... before its too late. And by then, I expect the Canadian border to be closed.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

YEAH, it was.

But why do I have the sinking feeling that the American public, once the Bush/Rove machine is done with their... machinations... will believe every syllable that they utter? I'm rapidly losing faith that Americans as a whole will do the right thing for their Nation and for themselves... before its too late. And by then, I expect the Canadian border to be closed.

We can visit my Mom in Maine some time in August, then make a day trip to some nice wooded forest .... and slip across the border.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

And by then, I expect the Canadian border to be closed.

Better than Canada (which is getting a bit 'Blair-ish' towards the US these past years, and might not end up being a useful harbor if it comes to it), get your passport registered with the Aussie Immigration folks (I believe it's called an "ETA Visa"); you can come and go -- or not -- as you wish for the full remaining balance of the ten-year life of your passport. And they're pretty keen to take on technically-skilled people from first-world countries. You can fly there from either Canada or Mexico easily enough, or from the US if you're diligent enough to get your flight before the borders close...

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

We can visit my Mom in Maine some time in August, then make a day trip to some nice wooded forest .... and slip across the border.

I just hope you don't get hit with fines for that . . .

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

YEAH, it was.

But why do I have the sinking feeling that the American public, once the Bush/Rove machine is done with their... machinations... will believe every syllable that they utter? I'm rapidly losing faith that Americans as a whole will do the right thing for their Nation and for themselves... before its too late.

I see more and more people simply tuning Bush/Rove out - including my wife. Unfortunately, it's not like there's much else to tune in to.

Searching for a rice grain of truth among the polyps of State

Originally Posted by Mr. Daniel Larison on Condi v. Katie

Hacks and propagandists manipulate history to serve the turn of their masters. This has been going on since, well, ever since history was recorded. Thus anarchic Iraq can be likened to the period of the Confederation, because this tells us that things will get better and the Iraqis are doing just fine, the Sunni insurgency can be likened to the non-existent “Werewolves” of post-WWII Germany (Rumsfeld & Condi) to prove that everything will work out, and everything (and I do mean everything) can be likened to 1938 Europe and every enemy can be compared with fascists as a way of rallying people to the colours and convincing them of the vital necessity of fighting for “as long as it takes.” Normal people might want to stop fighting Iraqis who are butchering each other, but relatively few want to pitch in the towel in the anti-fascist crusade. It has become something of a commonplace in the historian’s trade that people reinvent the past all the time, because the person who dictates what happened in the past can often determine what should be done now through an appeal to (created) memories–and who would be better for this than the people with the empire that creates its ”own reality”?


Incidentally, why doesn’t anybody liken things to 1689 Augsburg? The Augsburgers have called and complained about the obvious ongoing discrimination against the War of the League of Augsburg (known as King William’s War to us colonials), one of those petty disputes over rights in a German principality and French aggrandisement under Louis XIV–which has so many obvious parallels to today’s problems, don’t you think? I mean, isn’t it obvious how a French invasion of small German states applies to today’s problems? Aren’t the parallels between the Sun King and Saddam Hussein just jumping out at you? No? Why not? You must want to submit to the Islamobourbons!


Now presumably Secretary Rice meant that you cannot actually go back and alter events in the past, which is true. Who would know this better than the “student of history”? But Rice shows that you can abuse history to no end and still claim to be a student of history–apparently in all seriousness.

...Frankly, if it makes any difference to those inclined to believe the Secretary, the civil rights movement/Iraq analogy is actually insulting to black Americans, who were not typically likely to empower parties with armed militias that would be engaged in ethnic and sectarian mass killings. There is also the small problem that black Americans in the 1960s were, well, Americans and partook of the same cultural and political inheritance that made representative government possible here. To be blunt, Nuri al-Maliki isn’t really anything like Medgar Evers, now, is he? The Iraqis, whatever else you might want to say in favour of them, have had no such advantages and have been doing all of this more or less from scratch; in practise, they have shown their preference to side with people like themselves (which is perfectly normal) and to vote in the interests of their ethnic or religious community, and these communities have their allegiances to the exclusion of the “nation” or the government. This is not really a knock on the Iraqis, who are failing just as any other people would fail to adapt to a political system that is totally alien to their history and culture (we would likely make a mess of Byzantine ceremonial rites and Chinese court protocol), but it is simply an observation that such habits are highly unlikely to produce successful mass democracy in a heterogenously populated nation-state that lacks any real political consensus.


Real students of history know these things. Professional liars–and what are diplomats if not that?–do not, and more importantly they don’t care that they don’t know it. They will say whatever they need to say to make the deal or sell the policy. Mix that ingrained dishonesty with fanatical, moralistic self-righteousness, such as this “we are fighting the new KKK” sort of argument, and you have a very nasty, dangerous cocktail on your hands.

The aged parent sat through this on CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday evening whilst I wiled away the hour with Broncos v. Pats. I think Providence or Clio kept me away from such an historical exposition by a student of history for good purpose.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Better than Canada (which is getting a bit 'Blair-ish' towards the US these past years, and might not end up being a useful harbor if it comes to it) . . .

Indeed. At this rate, Anschluss awaits. Just imagine the power of the Canadians in the Senate!

During the 70's, I grew up watching 60 minutes. It has remained one of the few network television programs that I make a practice of watching scince I 'evolved' to cable. For the first time ever sunday night, I had to turn it off. The lightweight Katie Couric doing a human interest-propagand peice while American troops are dying everyday in a war that Rice advocated and Couric's daily 'newscasts' almost never mention was just too much to take.

The United States has become a propaganda state with the willing co-operation of a feckless corporate media. If it weren't for the internet, our endangered free speech would have already been prostituted away by those unworthy to hold the journalistic seats of trust that they too often got for reason having little or nothing to do with journalism or trust.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Indeed. At this rate, Anschluss awaits. Just imagine the power of the Canadians in the Senate!

Under the doctrine of unitary executive being pushed by the Bushites, those Canadian senators will be nothing more than the same kind of rubber stamps that American senators have acted like scince 911.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The United States has become a propaganda state with the willing co-operation of a feckless corporate media.

Good catch.